Consultation Point: Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham

Person ID 1216691 Full Name Faraz Baber ID 78 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3229 Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not While the opportunity for a hotel and commercial use in principle seems a sound choice given its proximity to both the M40 and M25; there is the inherent issue that will believe this policy to be arise as a result of development in this location which is the additional traffic generation that will be created as a result of such an allocation. The allocation will encourage justified please explain why car usage and more fundamentally create additional traffic congestion and air pollution on the roundabout system and adjoining roads, particularly during peak periods of the week. Over the weekends, there is a very successful super large car boot sale that takes place adjacent to this site. The knock on effect of this event alone is that the spur road off the A40/ M40 to the denham roundtable is grid locked which stretches from one end of the spur road to the other onto the M40 westbound stretch. By allocating a large mixed use scheme adjacent to this site will add to this existing traffic congestion this stretch of the road network already causes. Furthermore, I haven't seen a evidence basis why the Council believe this site justifies the mix of uses it has proposed and balanced this with the material considerations this will have overall in the vicinity of the allocation. I see no evidence justifying the reasoning for a hotel or further commercial office space. What is the expectation of car parking provision that will be allocated

3230 for this site (if any) and what are the sustainability expectations in terms of making this site a car free entity? Fundamentally, the additional car generation/ traffic flow will be of concern and has the impact to create issues not only during weekdays but also given there are special events adjacent to the site, there will be inevitable problems on the network over the weekends too. I don't believe the allocation based on the four tests of soundness, particularly with regards to the compliance with the NPPF Feb 2019 have been met and therefore request this allocation to be rejected. Policy 2a - Please specify as If the site allocation was expressly made to be car free - with a clear planning condition that no car park spaces beyond disability spaces are provided; it would help to address precisely and succinctly as an overriding concern over the need to reduce the reliance on cars. I see no evidence on how these are justifiable in terms of evidence provided to date - this feels like the possible how you would council are responding to a speculative approach by a third party and are seeking to allocate this site on what I can only assume are initial discussions with a proposed modify this policy to applicant. The site doesn't naturally stick out for the need for a hotel or office space - what is the motive/ driver for this? Is the priority, given its proximity to a housing improve its alignment to development, to build homes with no car parking provision? The proposed allocation will only serve a transient community (hotel users) and there seems to be no data to this test of soundness. justify whether there is a commercial market/ appetite to have offices in this location. If the site is to be allocated for development, more evidence, data and clearer green credentials that limit or create a zero impact on the road network must be considered as red lines. On balance, this site doesn't lend itself to large scale development that relies on additional cars on the network to access it. It would be more appropriate to consider developments that are less intrusive, which encourages and fosters a new community to integrate into the existing fabric of the area and which is not one which is not overly reliant on the road network. I don't see how this allocation is justifiable at this stage and should it proceed to examination stage, the Inspector will need to be satisfied the proposed uses are sound and reasonable and in keeping with the NPPF and are evidenced based - currently, this is not the case in point. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219003 Full Name Bob James ID 839 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3231 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3232 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Further to the application for removal of the green belt from Denham Village and surrounding areas please note our strong objection to the application. believe this policy to be The amount of traffic, often at speed, driving through Denham Village to avoid the traffic lights at the Denham/A412 junction is already causing concern to villagers. Several justified please explain why families living on Village road are either elderly or have young children therefore the additional traffic flow, in addition to difficulty in respect to access or exit from the village, will increase the danger to residents. Please reconsider any thoughts you may have in support of this application. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1218982 Full Name Mrs

3233 Pam Banks ID 838 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to

3234 strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not I object to this proposal. I overlook the five lanes leading to the Denham roundabout a quarter of a mile from the Denham Roundabout. it is congested every time the Car believe this policy to be Boot at Denham roundabout is on as all the are congested until after noon, making it impossible to get to or on the way to Iver. justified please explain why When there is a problem with the M25 it is congested where people are trying to get to Junction17. If there is a problem on the M40, then we have congestion outside my house most of the morning. I live at 9 Bronsdon way, Denham. I have lived here over 30 years. There has been a flooding problem where, when I leave Bronsdon way into Cheapside lane to join the Oxford road, which has not been resolved for months. There must be many more places which are much less than congested away from this area. I object to this proposal. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3235 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1218988 Full Name Richard Phillips ID 867 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3236 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3237 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not This development is unnecessary and will cause further congestion to an already congested roundabout. It will also badly impact on the entrance to the Colne Valley Park believe this policy to be The junction of the A40 and M40 is a disaster already and will not support this new development. We live in Denham green and the traffic is already unacceptable especially justified please explain why when the M25 gets blocked between J17 and J16 which is now happening 2 to 3 times a week. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1218988 Full Name Richard Phillips ID 879 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee:

3238 Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence

3239 Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Denham is being over-developed and it is unsustainable. There are not enough doctors, schools and roads to support further housing. We are cursed with HS2 which is believe this policy to be clogging and damaging our roads, damaging our cars and environment. The A40, M40 roundabout cannot support this proposed development. justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy

3240 Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219122 Full Name Josie Mitchell ID 965 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3241 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3242 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Losing the status of Green Belt puts this land in danger of overdevelopment by commercial companies out to make a profit, not for the benefit of the local area. believe this policy to be The fields are obviously no longer utilized as agricultural land, but host regular car boot sales. These sales already cause a significant disruption to traffic on the roundabout justified please explain why and all roads leading to the entrance. Traffic jams are already a problem in the area – at times even Uxbridge town is virtually gridlocked – and this will get worse as the traffic associated with HS2 increases. How will the movement of traffic cope with a Hotel, offices and housing also exiting onto the busy M40/A40/A4020. Has it been forgotten that this area is on the edge of a floodplain? I would also like to question the need for a hotel in this area. The airport is already well covered with hotels and more planned if the third runway goes ahead – what other need is there locally? Office blocks are standing empty in New Denham and nearby in Uxbridge; modern working habits require less office space! Whilst I understand the need for more affordable housing, these and other brownfield sites could be developed instead. I have not touched on the impact the Draft Plan will have on the Colne Valley Regional Park as I am sure you will receive detailed concerns regarding the effect on that environment. Although I do not live in Denham, I feel lucky to live alongside such a beautiful corner of Britain. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219883 Full Name Mrs Rosaline Gooding ID 1492 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3243 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3244 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Although not living in the designated areas, I am only a mile away from Tatling End, just inside the Gerrards Cross boundary; I regulary use - at least 5 times a week - the A40 not believe this policy to be down to Denham. positively prepared please The Colne Country Park is a valuable asset to all concerned, haing been cultivated over the years for use of thousands of people, apart from preserving the gradually decreasing explain why Green Belt land. It is an unnecessary place to build a hotel and housing. The traffic would be horrendeous, pollution at it's highest as cars wait in traffic jams attempting to access the M40 & M25 junctions; traffic is already backed up Red Hill waiting to turn left onto A412 as does the traffic awaiting on the A40 to turn right onto the A412. These traffic problems are reflected onto the A40 here in Gerrards Cross, causing further pollution from waiting traffic. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why

3245 Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1214012 Full Name Mr Stewart Pomeroy ID 6230 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Managing Agent Colne Valley Park CIC Consultee Type - Please Local Interest Group/Amenity Society select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-07-01 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is No this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3246 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do This policy is not ‘sound’ as the site is important for providing a green entry to the green areas beyond including Denham Country Park and should not be removed from the not believe this policy to be Green Belt. If this field is developed it will completely blight the gateway to Denham Country Park and the current green approach to the Colne Valley Park Visitor Centre, as positively prepared please well as heightening the risk of urbanisation given its close proximity to New Denham, Uxbridge and A40. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as If the site is taken forward in the local plan, the following points must be incorporated into the policy. precisely and succinctly as

3247 possible how you would This site is wholly located within the Colne Valley Regional Park. Clear reference must be made to this in the preamble, the policy itself, and in the site-specific requirements. modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ are not met in line with paragraphs 136 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF para138: this site is not “well served by public believe this policy in transport”. Locating development of this nature here is in direct conflict with policy DMDP9 which seeks to reduce reliance on the car. consistent with the This policy releases land in the green belt yet has inadequate off-site green belt improvements associated with it. This is not ‘sound’ as it is in conflict with NPPF para 138: “ National Planning Policy Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should … also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from Framework Feb 2019 the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land”. Ways that this site can please explain why contribute towards environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt land in the Colne Valley Regional Park adjacent to the site include: • Enhancement of paths, landscaping and biodiversity within Denham Country Park and paths around the lakes at the Lea quarry; • Information, interpretation, visitor facilities and public events at the Colne Valley Park Visitor Centre; • The upgrade, improvement and promotion of the Denham circular walk which runs nearby; • Improvement of the rights of way network within the CVRP, including a new cycle/walking route between the development, through the Lea Quarry, over a new Colne bridge to connect with the Canal towpath. As well as connecting hotel guests and existing local residents to the network of footpaths and bridleways, this will also create an attractive off-road route to Uxbridge. • Environmental improvements in line with the objectives of the CVRP Policy 3a - Please specify as The following on-site opportunities should be included in the list of site-specific requirements in the planning application should the site be released from the green belt: precisely and succinctly as • A 30m landscaped swathe of green belt should be retained adjacent to Denham Court Drive. This is critical to retaining openness of the green belt, and must form a possible how you would fundamental part of any site policy. modify this policy to improve its alignment to • Footpath links to be provided through the site from adjacent residential areas and Denham roundabout to Denham Country Park, and the network of public rights of way this test of soundness. within the Colne Valley Regional Park. • Existing food/drink outlets in Denham Court Drive at the Colne Valley Park Visitor Centre and Buckinghamshire Golf Club should be highlighted with appropriate, clearly visible signs from the development site and from Denham roundabout. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1216603 Full Name Chris Padley ID 4919 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Environment Agency Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3248 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3249 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We believe that this policy has been positively prepared not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as NA precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not NA believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as NA precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not NA believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as We would like to see the below amendment to point h in the policy: precisely and succinctly as ‘h. provision of Green Infrastructure, including providing biodiversity net gain, the creation of new links and improvements to the Public Rights of Way network within the possible how you would site and beyond modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not NA believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as NA precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3250 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219059 Full Name Anthony Longden ID 1112 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant

3251 legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not It would be hard to imagine a less suitable site for offices (an increasingly outdated requirement for modern businesses anyway, given the rise of ‘agile working’ remotely believe this policy to be from home and elsewhere), and an hotel. justified please explain why

3252 The site, already causing quite enough problems as the location for a large and disruptive car boot sale, lies in the Colne Valley Regional Park. Local authorities are partner organisations of the Park, having pledged to protect it and help it meet its six objectives (https://www.colnevalleypark.org.uk/whats-special/). It is astonishing that any development of a site so close to the Park’s visitor centre could be viewed as any kind of serious proposition. It would blight the site, cause unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, air and light pollution, as well as driving a wedge into the defences of an already fragile and endangered landscape. Denham roundabout is frequently the cause of gridlock in Uxbridge and Ickenham. Controversial ‘improvements’ are due to be carried out at Swakeleys Roundabout that will exacerbate an already grim situation where cars queue back on to the M40, and I shudder to think of yet more traffic trying to get in and out of a site access that gives directly on to the roundabout itself at peak times. Establishment of the Green Belt was far-sighted and brave. It anticipated the inevitable and sustained pressure for expansion of London, recognising the need for people on the urban fringe to have somewhere to use for recreation and relaxation. The benefits of the use of green spaces with regard to mental health are well known. Any relaxation of this vital planning protection will, I believe, allow the steady spread of development from Uxbridge into South Bucks, thereby destroying the ancient setting of the settlements in these areas. Combined with the significant impact of HS2, the recent review of flightpaths that threaten to bring around 17 air movements per hour over our area at altitudes of between 2,000-5,000ft, and Heathrow expansion, it will permanently blight or wipe out what scraps of countryside we have left to enjoy. Development proposals for this Green Belt site which also lies in a regional park, are baldly opportunist; giving them serious consideration is in my view a reckless dereliction of the duty to protect the wider environment for the benefit of the enormous number of people living in the immediate area. There are plenty of other brownfield alternatives that should and must be looked at to avoid such a terrible mistake being made. Already congested roads, which include the enormously busy M40 (and within a mile or so of its major junction with the M25), cannot cope with the load currently placed on them. Adding to that should surely be unthinkable. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1218805 Full Name Rajinder Kisan ID 1137 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3253 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3254 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Development to land north of Denham roundabout believe this policy to be I wish to object to this proposal of plans to develop the land adjacent Denham roundabout on the following grounds: justified please explain why • Traffic flow is already at braking point at peak hours, and increate of development will simply create chaos. • Unnecessary destruction to the green belt • Unnecessary destruction to the habitat of small wildlife Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why

3255 Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219197 Full Name Donna Taylor ID 1225 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness?

3256 Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3257 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land north of Denham roundabout and the destruction of our greenbelt land. Having been a resident of believe this policy to be Denham for nearly 40 years I'm disgusted that this proposal can even be considered, the increasing problem with traffic through the area is already unbearable at times and justified please explain why this would only exacerbate the problem and add to the already declining area. The destruction of greenbelt land clearly goes against greenbelt policies which were designed to protect greenbelt land!! It's outrageous that this proposal could even be considered and I strongly protest against it. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219278 Full Name Martin Rogan ID 1276 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3258 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3259 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not I appreciate the on-line information provided, but my system is pretty old and does not allow a comprehensive scrutiny of the details, so my comments are more general in believe this policy to be nature, based on what I perceive as the intention for developments to be based around the general perimeter of the Denham Roundabout. justified please explain why The Green Belt around London was designed as 'the lungs of London'. In that respect it is still serving its purpose. A clear demonstration of the pollution status in the city are the signs for traffic restriction into London as a consequence of their air quality being in constant default of international commitments. We are constantly being advised of the dangerous levels of toxicity this is reaching on a routine basis. There are recent statistics of the local air quality, conducted as part of the monitoring of the gravel extraction. At the time we were assured that any pollution was as a result of local traffic, and not the extraction or cement process. This evidence should now be used to evidence comparison with the inner London conditions. More generally, we are also constantly being advised of the steps the farming community is being encouraged (and rewarded) for taking, in order to try and redress the deterioration nationwide. In whose interest is that this should be put at risk? Certainly not the local community's Another observation involves levels of traffic, in particular how it operates in the area surrounding the Denham Roundabout. In the normal course of events, anytime between 07:30 to 09:30 and 16: 30 to 18:30 Monday to Friday, the area is totally congested in all directions. Not surprising, as it is not only a main route into Uxbridge, , and London, but also the nearest entry and exit point for both the M40 and the M25. In the event of an incident on any of these routes, at any time of day or night, it is a major relief route for travelers and emergency services. On those seemingly frequent occasions the congestion periods noted above are not only randomly occurring, but frequently for extensive periods. To make this area a DESTINATION by locating business, industrial units, or even significant housing there, would exacerbate an already major problem , and make use as a relief route impossible. (When the 'short term' needs of gravel extraction were introduced to this area, it required a single use roundabout away from the core Denham Roundabout to deal with that situation.) Any doubts about its potential for easy congestion is further demonstrated by visiting on a Saturday morning, when the Car Boot sale is in progress on the field adjacent to the roundabout. These issues, together with the impact on the Football Club, Allotments, and the Nursery businesses in the vicinity,should be well understood by our Local Councilors, but repeated occurrence in planning applications, and suggested inclusion in county and local plans seems to give the lie to that expectation. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3260 Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219453 Full Name Anne Hayton ID 1115 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be

3261 as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I do not see how anything can be 'positively prepared' according to this definition when South Bucks district Council is about to disappear (something which I only found out not believe this policy to be about when there were no elections for the Council! positively prepared please explain why

3262 PP Mods - Please specify as This particular policy is totally inappropriate for the area precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Are there really no brownfield sites around? believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not Any development on the area North of Denham roundabout is ill-conceived as it impinges on a main entrance to the Colne Valley Regional Park an is totally inappropriate believe this policy in for that. Traffic in the area is already problematic, especially in the rush hour or when there are problems on the nearby section of the M25. There is no way in which the consistent with the situation would not be made much worse by any increase in traffic. National Planning Policy It does not fit at all with green belt policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as This particular proposal should be withdrawn completely. precisely and succinctly as (Why it has been proposed just now when South Bucks District Council is about to disappear I am unable to understand - leaving me rather suspicious of motives!) possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219505 Full Name Mr and Mrs David and Tracey Lane ID 1159 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3263 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3264 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not (car boot field where an office and hotel are being proposed) believe this policy to be As it is an unnecessary destruction of green belt when there are still many brownfield sites elsewhere which have been under-utilised. justified please explain why It will cause damage and deface the entrance to the Colne Valley Park It will cause traffic chaos at the junction of the A40 and M40 which is a major junction for traffic Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3265 Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219808 Full Name Julia Riddle ID 1309 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as

3266 precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not It is noted that there is an identified need to protect and grow the strong local economy in this area, which includes the protection of existing employment sites, as set out believe this policy to be at paragraph 6.6.8. Farmglade provide further commentary in relation to this economic and employment context in relation to Policy DM EP3. justified please explain why Within policy SP EP4, there is an allocation for 16,000 sqm of employment floorspace to the north of the Denham Roundabout (SP BP13). Tatling End lies to the north of the allocated site (SP BP13) and within Tatling End, Phoenix House is an identified Key Economic Site (As stated in the Local Plan 2036 – Publication Version, but “Key Employment Site” in the Proposed Changes to the Adopted Policies Maps).

3267 Farmglade is the owner of land at Tatling End, including the site of Phoenix House (allocated as site KT18). This area benefits from existing employment use but is bounded to the east and west by residential use and a recent permission for 9 flats to the immediate east. It has long been considered an appropriate location for delivery of residential development, however, its location in the Green Belt has precluded this. The Plan proposes the removal of Tatling End from the Green Belt, which provides the opportunity to consider the redevelopment of this area. In accordance with making best use of land, Farmglade consider that there is the potential for the delivery of further residential development on the site of Phoenix House and on other land at Tatling End, which would make best use of this location. Farmglade therefore supports the aim for provision of a significant proportion of employment use north of the Denham roundabout, but that the area around Tatling End and specifically site KT18 should not be constrained from possible future residential use. Policy 2a - Please specify as It is proposed that the wording of this policy should be more specific in terms of the ‘relevant policies’ which need to be adhered to in relation to these allocations. precisely and succinctly as In this context; the policies, for example DM EP3, should include greater flexibility to allow for the consideration of specific sites in terms of their value for employment use possible how you would and their ability to deliver development which meets other needs in the Plan, such as housing. Further commentary is proposed in relation to Policy DM EP3. modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219857 Full Name Caroline Morris ID 1446 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3268 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3269 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do This area of land is in the greenbelt and there are many other brownfield sites that could be used instead. It’s vital we keep every bit of greenbelt in this area as it is being not believe this policy to be eroded away. Development will cause further traffic load on his junction/roundabout, which is very busy at rush-hours and is at a standstill when there is congestion on the positively prepared please M25 and traffic leaves the motorway at junction 16 to use the parallel roads A412 and A4020 explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223563 Full Name Mrs Anne Margaret Ling

3270 ID 5626 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3271 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I have just been informed I need to include my objection in this consultation. I wish to object strongly to any building plan whatsoever on site 4 of your Denham Parish not believe this policy to be Neighbourhood Plan: Higher Denham Site Assessments February 2019. As well as Green Belt it is the globally rare chalk stream, River Misbourne valley floor, which has made positively prepared please Higher Denham so delightful and famous for it's Open Gardens for the NGS and it's idyllic setting. explain why You say you have the technology to build on this flood plane but we don't and I am less than one meter above the water table. We will have trouble getting insurance. PP Mods - Please specify as You have plenty of fields, some of them rubbish strewn, along Old Rectory Lane you can use without obliterating this river valley oasis. HS2 have already wrecked our local precisely and succinctly as and ancient footpaths. possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why.

3272 PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1211091 Full Name Mr J. A. Swan ID 3564 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Individual/Resident select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-01-25 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is No this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance?

3273 Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you

3274 consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The whole point of it and other Green Belts is the prevention of urbanization at the edges of cities and towns. not believe this policy to be Quite why a hotel is required on this site is not clear at all to me when less than a mile away the once prestigious Crown & Treaty hotel has declined over the years to the positively prepared please point it is now derelict. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not This proposal to remove green belt status is a breach of policy some of which were only established earlier this year believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1214652 Full Name Mrs Gina Robinson ID 1946 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Individual/Resident select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-11-14 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is No this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3275 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3276 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I mrs g robinson and mr m robinson do object to plans to developed on this land north of denham roundabout. This we feel would bring utter chaos to our already struggling not believe this policy to be infrastructure the traffic that comes through denham is at an all time high and most days is a challenge. More buildings more cars we would not cope . This is an unnecessary positively prepared please demise of our greenbelt land wich we people that have lived here many generations wish to hang on to and not see more of it disappear other areas I feel would be more explain why suitable wich have other infrastructure measures better in place surrounding areas have more brownfield sites we feel this goes totally against bucks countycouncil policy wich is to protect the green belt PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3277 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219611 Full Name Lynne Ambrose ID 2714 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including

3278 references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The proposal for a hotel and offices with the removal of another green belt area will completely change the entrance to the Colne Valley Park which again goes totally going not believe this policy to be against the local plan opening statement to 'protect our valued environment'. positively prepared please It will cause traffic chaos at the junction of the A40 and M40 which is a major junction that already suffers from congestion problems especially during rush hour times. To explain why build commercial properties so close to this junction will only add to the congestion which is already regularly gridlocked. South Bucks has been asked to take a higher percentage (59%) of the housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks but Chiltern is the largest area. This doesn't make sense. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3279 Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not The removal of the green belt status to these areas is not only a breach of the Governments' green belt policy but also goes completely against the Bucks County Council believe this policy in green belt protection policy. A review by Bucks County Council of the County wide green belt sites, which was published in April 2019, rejected taking the settlements out consistent with the of green belt. National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219148 Full Name Donna Rumball ID 5833 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is

3280 not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as

3281 precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Site 1.16 (B22)Area west of Denham Green near Denham Golf Club not believe this policy to be Proposal for 560 homes is unviable. positively prepared please explain why Report claims schooling is available yet E-Act Academy (Primary) Ofsted report of 2015/16 shows 20places available with 40 applications and Vyners Secondary School Ofsted report of 2015/16 showed 180 places available with 985 applications. Clearly despite the reports claims, places are not available to meet the current number of applications let alone available to meet a further increase generated by the families occupying any new homes. There is no provision in the local plan to increase schools places in the area. Furthermore there is no provision in the local plan for increased healthcare/hospitals in the area to take into account the increase of population these homes would create, which according to national statistics equates to 2000 people! There is no provision in the plan to provide for better transport facilities, roads and infrastructure to take into account the already overcrowded road system. The excessive environmental damage which is being caused by the huge amount of construction work taking place in the area due to HS2 over the next 6 years, will be compounded by any further loss of greenbelt. Remaining sites listed for development 1.17, 1.18a, 1.18b again are all within greenbelt. The council's own sustainability report by Legus Consulting states the sites are unsuitable for development. Whilst the objections listed above apply to these sites as well, the fact that their own consultants advise against their development should demonstrate how totally unviable the proposals within the local plan actually are. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not There are several sites within my local area marked for development which I strongly object to. believe this policy to be 1.18 (B24)land north of Denham roundabout justified please explain why Proposed hotel and office development is within a greenbelt site. It would destroy an existing natural environment and dramatically increase traffic on an already busy route. Considering this is a route already planned for HS2 development traffic the additional traffic would bring the area to a standstill. Demand for commercial development is negligible, particularly as there are new developments on the Oxford Road standing empty since construction over a decade ago. No development of greenbelt should be permitted when brownfield space is available. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3282 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219357 Full Name Nigel Leary ID 1609 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is

3283 not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The Colne Valley park is a local area of outstanding natural beauty, and is heavily used by local residents and visitors alike. The park is also home to a significant and diverse not believe this policy to be wildlife community. The proposed plans will without doubt have a detrimental effect to this location. positively prepared please I am a resident of Higher Denham since 2009, and a daily commuter around the Denham Roundabout. The traffic pressure on this junction has increased significantly over explain why the last 5 years, and regularly gridlocks whenever there is the slightest glitch on the M25. Adding an office and hotel to this location will cause absolute chaos on a regular basis, and will have a serious effect on the air quality of the area, which is already poor at peak times. This is stupid for environmental, infrastructural, and health reasons, and is completely irresponsible. I may be wrong, but I though that this area was green-belt land. This is in direct opposition of the current governments green-belt policy, which must be illegal aside from being immoral. The are plenty of brown-field sites where offices and hotels could be constructed without causing so much chaos and destruction to the green-belt. I personally fail to see the requirement for a hotel and offices at a location where there is very poor public transportation (where is the nearest train / underground station). Uxbridge has fantastic transportation links and shops closing every month, and even they are not contemplating this proposal. Having lived in Ruislip prior to moving to Higher Denham I am acutely aware that Hillingdon are a far superior and better run local authority that South Buck, it would now also appear that they are also not so stupid and greedy!

3284 PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220343 Full Name Mair Henton ID 1637 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you

3285 consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination

3286 Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I object to your proposal to take the land next to Denham roundabout out of Green Belt for the following reasons: not believe this policy to be 1. For local residents, it is already difficult to turn out of Old Mill Road, particularly during rush hour or on a Saturday morning when the car boot sale is being held - in fact positively prepared please the traffic on Saturday mornings is sometimes nearly gridlocked. Further traffic to and from the area around Denham roundabout should be avoided at all costs as it will explain why cause chaos. 2. There are still brownfield sites elsewhere which are under-utilised. 3. No-one will want to queue for hours to get to and from the Country Park. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

3287 Person ID 1220353 Full Name Hollie Lashmar ID 1659 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3288 Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do • Extra traffic and queues around the Denham roundabout as this already a busy route with queues of traffic and congestion not believe this policy to be • Road damage for extra trucks and works vehicles – pot holes etc positively prepared please explain why • Damage to the entrance of the Colne Valley country park and noise pollution • We already have extra works vehicles in the Denham area due to HS2 and the removal of green belt due to this destruction, so this will only add to the loss of wild life and general happiness and well being of the local residents, as this encroaches on our properties and gardens. • Once the hotel and offices are built it will add to noise pollution with lorries, delivery vans/trucks and again extra number of commuters • The request for office premises on the car boot field, is unnecessary as there are multiple blocks of EMPTY office space which has been empty for over a year, in Uxbridge which is less than a mile away. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why

3289 Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219893 Full Name Andrew Hook ID 1517 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please

3290 be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a

3291 modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am aware that there is a planning request to build on green belt land to the north of Denham roundabout, if this was to be allowed it would cause chaos on a major junction not believe this policy to be of the A40 and M40 highways causing delays to local traffic. Building on this land would deface the entrance to Denham Country Park and start a precedence of allowing positively prepared please building on any greenfield site in this area. explain why I feel that changing the Green Belt policy is unnecessary as it would allow the destruction of the Green Belt in this area, there is plenty of brown field sites within the area that could be explored for future building oppotunities without distroying the limited amount of green field space left in Denham. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219906 Full Name Louise Wilson ID 1542 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details

3292 Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3293 Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am a local resident to the land North of Denham roundabout and I am writing to object to the removal of this land from the Green Belt as: not believe this policy to be - This is a Breach of both the Government and Bucks County Council Green Belt policies. positively prepared please explain why - There has already been a 2019 review rejecting taking this land out of greenbelt - This land is adjacent to the country park and it would be inappropriate to develop next door in this manner - We are already subjected to traffic chaos with the A40/M40 and access to the M25 at several different times of the day and this sort of development would prevent easy access to Denham village and to Uxbridge. Accidents are frequent. - There are plenty of other more appropriate sites suitable for development. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3294 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1219913 Full Name Mary Woodford ID 1554 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make

3295 the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible

3296 Policy Level - PP - If you do I need to register the strongest objection ,to building offices and hotel on the site by Denham roundabout. not believe this policy to be Denham green belt is slowly but surely being eroded, by HS2 and now this. I would ask that this project is shelved.And that the residents old Denham are allowed some green positively prepared please belt, otherwise we are going be an extension of Uxbridge.with no green belt left. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220411 Full Name Daniel Gibbs ID 1811 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name

3297 Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3298 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do 1. Development of land north of Denham roundabout not believe this policy to be This is unnecessary when there are sites available elsewhere - it is Green belt for a reason positively prepared please explain why Colne valley country park is beautiful and picturesque and this proposal will take all of that away. On a map, the park is highlighted in Denham, and when people arrive they will see a hotel or office. It will cause unnecessary traffic chaos in and around the area. As a resident of priory close (backing onto the proposed site) your proposal upsets me mainly for my children. We spend a considerable amount of time walking in and around the area in the lovely big fields and surrounding public footpaths, and this would remove that ability. Denham is known for being a beautiful green village and doing such proposals wouldn’t only do the above, it would change the landscape and village feel of Denham completely. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3299 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220428 Full Name Cheryl and Peter Malvermi ID 1839 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant

3300 legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development or land and removal of 3 Denham settlements from the Green Belt. not believe this policy to be They may not be “beauty spots” but, we have enough traffic, congestion, pollution and parking problems in the area that these proposals are un-realistic. We already have positively prepared please to drive somewhere to walk the dog or ourselves to get enough exercise. How is this going to help, the Oxford Road is already overwhelmed with traffic and pollution, most explain why of the local nature reserves are derelict. Yet, our Council Tax is going up to pay for this so called “Developing” which doesn’t benefit us the existing residents! They have already developed an area for retirement flats where they built approximately 37 homes but, only enough Parking for approximately just over 20 cars. The answer to our protests was “not everyone will have a car”. But, what about their visitors etc who use the surrounding roads for Parking. Meaning we have difficulty finding a place to park our own cars! This is ridiculous and an complete insult to the residents that are already suffering from so called “DEVELOPEMENTS” Shame on you, our so called District Council! Please do not let this happen, use the many “brownfield sites” that have been left in-touched and under utilised! Please, please listen to your residents and help keep Denham a nice area, spend the money instead on somewhere for the young people to go and preserving/re-opening the nature reserves especially the one on Moorfield Road, just past the white border on the way to Harefield, which is permanently locked even, though there is a notification

3301 stating that it will be “open as usual during the HS works” and cut the overgrown grass along those pathways! I suffer with severe pain and mobility problems but, would love to be able to stroll around said area. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220450 Full Name Janice Dark ID 1899 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3302 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3303 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do • There are still brownfield sites that are underutilised so therefore it is an unnecessary destruction of green belt not believe this policy to be • It will cause traffic chaos at the junction of the A40 and M40 which is a major junction for traffic. The traffic from these developments will significantly add to the already positively prepared please congested Denham roundabout flowing from the M40, A40 and the A4020 explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220391

3304 Full Name Jennifer and Michael Hodge and Brooks ID 1766 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to

3305 strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do My understanding is that this green area is being considered for building of a hotel and offices. Considering the amount of brown field sites and other land more suitable not believe this policy to be for development in the area, removal of this land from the Green Belt appears to be completely unnecessary. The car boot sale already causes an enormous amount of traffic positively prepared please in the area, so this would become a much worse, more regular problem, with a bottleneck on the roundabout at all times of the day, particularly when there are issues on explain why the M25 as well. The area is already at a standstill around rush hour times, due to heavy traffic heading for Uxbridge, London and the M25. Adding more housing to the above areas does not make sense at all given the current levels of traffic and congestion at Denham roundabout, and on the M40 and A40 leading to the M25 and Uxbridge/London. More traffic in this area would be disastrous unless the road infrastructure can be improved to accommodate it. Please reconsider these proposals to destroy Green Belt land in our area, and look for alternatives in unused brown field locations that have better road infrastructures. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3306 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220412 Full Name Rachel Kelly ID 1812 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3307 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3308 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am writing to Object to the above plans for a hotel and offices in already a very congested area. The A4020 is already a very very road and its a nightmare trying to drive out not believe this policy to be of Knighton Way Lane and New Town Road on to the A4020 as it is. positively prepared please As for the Green Belt being taken away its a disgrace,whats it going to be more homes without schools,doctors and hospital facilities,Are we housing the world?. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220416 Full Name Natasha Nealon ID 1814 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee:

3309 Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence

3310 Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do 1. Development of land north of Denham roundabout not believe this policy to be This is unnecessary when there are sites available elsewhere - it is Green belt for a reason positively prepared please explain why Colne valley country park is beautiful and picturesque and this proposal will take all of that away. On a map, the park is highlighted in Denham, and when people arrive they will see a hotel or office. It will cause unnecessary traffic chaos in and around the area. As a resident of priory close (backing onto the proposed site) your proposal upsets me mainly for my children. We spend a considerable amount of time walking in and around the area in the lovely big fields and surrounding public footpaths, and this would remove that ability. Denham is known for being a beautiful green village and doing such proposals wouldn’t only do the above, it would change the landscape and village feel of Denham completely. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3311 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220683 Full Name Julie Wise ID 2091 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally

3312 compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I believe the follow reasons demonstrate the severe impact on the local residents: not believe this policy to be

3313 positively prepared please • Traffic - the Denham roundabout is already a bottleneck during the rush hour but, as demonstrated by the car boot sale traffic, this can impact surrounding travel on M40 explain why and M25 as well as local traffic. Although a hotel may not have too much impact to traffic, the 2-3 years of construction will. • Light/noise - Construction light and noise will severely impact those that back on to the field in question. • Access - Gaining access to the Country Park and surrounding countryside will be restricted. • Greenbelt promise - Many people (including myself) have bought property that adjoins green belt countryside so that we are guaranteed to have to worry about how surround land is being used. • Poor use of space - The surrounding area is very well services already by hotels and office space - there are numerous empty office blocks in Uxbridge and Tatling end. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220465 Full Name Stephen Freeth ID 1938 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3314 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3315 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do i wish to object the development of the land north of of Denham roundabout not believe this policy to be ( the car boot field ) positively prepared please explain why i object the proposal to any offices and hotel development including any housing being built on the site this will cause un reversible damage to the green belt this will cause un reversible damage to and deface the entrance to colne valley park this will cause permanant chaos to the junction of the A40 / M40 Junction PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why

3316 Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220617 Full Name Sarahjane Leary ID 1963 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness?

3317 Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The Colne Valley park is a local area of outstanding natural beauty, and is heavily used by local residents and visitors alike. The park is also home to a significant and diverse not believe this policy to be wildlife community. The proposed plans will without doubt have a detrimental effect to this location. positively prepared please I am a resident of Higher Denham since 2009, and a daily commuter around the Denham Roundabout. The traffic pressure on this junction has increased significantly over explain why the last 5 years, and regularly gridlocks whenever there is the slightest glitch on the M25. Adding an office and hotel to this location will cause absolute chaos on a regular basis, and will have a serious effect on the air quality of the area, which is already poor at peak times. This is stupid for environmental, infrastructural, and health reasons, and is completely irresponsible. I may be wrong, but I though that this area was green-belt land. This is in direct opposition of the current governments green-belt policy, which must be illegal aside from being immoral. The are plenty of brown-field sites where offices and hotels could be constructed without causing so much chaos and destruction to the green-belt.

3318 I personally fail to see the requirement for a hotel and offices at a location where there is very poor public transportation (where is the nearest train / underground station). Uxbridge has fantastic transportation links and shops closing every month, and even they are not contemplating this proposal. Having lived in Ruislip prior to moving to Higher Denham I am acutely aware that Hillingdon are a far superior and better run local authority that South Buck, it would now also appear that they are also not so stupid and greedy! PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220866 Full Name Elizabeth Proud ID 2294 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name

3319 Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3320 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I wish also to object to the plan to develop the land to the north of Denham Roundabout. The traffic congestion any such development will cause would make life here not believe this policy to be unbearable; our roads are suffering congestion in any case from the High Speed rail development and that particular roundabout, at a major junction of the M40 & A40, is positively prepared please completely blocked every Saturday in Summer, when the car boot sale takes place. A development here will cause damage to the Colne Valley Park entrance and greenbelt explain why land should not be used when there are other brown field sites which could be used. I'm not happy about the mitigation measures proposed, which are as vague as those offered by HS2. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

3321 Person ID 1220675 Full Name Sally Cakebread ID 2077 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3322 Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I wish to object in the strongest terms to the potential development of land near Denham roundabout . Denham has already been massively blighted by HS2 destroying not believe this policy to be huge amounts of green belt in the Colne Valley. The last thing Denham needs is damage to the village area which has been relatively protected. The unsuitable overdevelopment positively prepared please of Denham Film Studios is a massive blight for Denham Green. I object to more people in Denham. There are already too many and not enough doctors, hospitals, schools explain why etc. We don’t want more people Potential noise. The A40 is noisy enough Traffic. There are already huge problems caused by the car boot sale. Destruction of fields and green spaces necessary for humans to live a healthy life. Chiltern Council is acting corruptly in trying to remove green belt. The Government is blatantly destroying green belt - HS2 is taking hundreds of acres at least in Denham alone. We must stand up to the Government and not just weakly accept things. Development is not necessary. Flats are being built which are not needed on green fields. Old buildings can be used instead. Denham was once a lovely place to live up to the 1980s but is now half destroyed. It is tragic to behold. First priority is to preserve all the green belt and the Colne Valley Park plus our heritage. Also to fight HS2 tooth and nail. I object also for the following reasons. 1. Development of land North of Denham roundabout: (car boot field where an office and hotel are being proposed) An unnecessary destruction of green belt when there are still many brownfield sites elsewhere which have been under-utilised. It will cause damage and deface the entrance to the Colne Valley Park It will cause traffic chaos at the junction of the A40 and M40 which is a major junction for traffic

3323 South Bucks has been asked to take 59% of the housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks where Chiltern is the largest area Beaconsfield and Iver, both abutting Denham, have large housing allocations. The traffic from these developments will significantly add to the already congested Denham roundabout flowing from the M40, A40 and the A4020 PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220871 Full Name Kim Richardson ID 2302 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name

3324 Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3325 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The first phase of this process [urban sprawl] would be the proposal to allow development of the land north of Denham Roundabout (Site allocation SP BP13, 4.6Ha.) Leaving not believe this policy to be aside the resulting increased traffic load on an already congested road network, especially at peak times, this proposal flies in the face of the Plan’s stated objectives to positively prepared please preserve the Green Belt, i.e. to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. explain why There are brownfield sites elsewhere in the area that could, surely, be used for housing without damaging conservation areas or starting the process of urban sprawl and closing the green areas. These valuable and permanent (so far) green spaces include wonderful natural amenities, such as the Colne Valley Park, a healthy recreational area use by large numbers of visitors - which would be affected by the development of Site allocation SP BP13, 4.6Ha. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3326 Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220903 Full Name Joan Sydenham ID 2324 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as

3327 precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do It has been brought to our attention that land in Denham on the roundabout which is used for the car boot sales is to have a hotel and offices built on the site. not believe this policy to be This seems totally totally unnecessary and the trashing of a very pretty area will mean another part of our green lung countryside will be gone forever. positively prepared please explain why Who needs a hotel to be built there apart from someone desperate to make money? There are already hotels in Uxbridge town and another to be built on the Master Brewer site in Hillingdon. WE have enough lorries already blocking our roads on a daily basis. Do not forget HS2 is also under way and removing swathes of green countryside and they too are blocking our roads with large lorries. Denham Roundabout is choked up with traffic on a daily basis and we dread to think what chaos will ensue with another volume of traffic to add to the mix with vehicles from a hotel and offices. Of course adjacent with this site is Denham Country Park which we are sure would suffer detrimentally with all that will need to be done to alter the entrance to the Park. A family member who lives in Beaconsfield has told us that many houses are due to be built in Beaconsfield and Iver. These developments will also add to the traffic volume at Denham Roundabout. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3328 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220935 Full Name Mr J Hughes ID 2362 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3329 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3330 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do • In Higher Denham we have no shops, doctors, dentist etc, i.e. no infrastructure so to remove our green belt is totally unnecessary. not believe this policy to be • Martin Baker a multi-national company are situated at the end of Lower Road. This road is unadopted and has no pavements. The factory generates an increasing high positively prepared please volume of traffic – in 2013 they estimated 2,300 and counting, traffic movements per day, yet amidst our concerns, no health and safety seems to apply and any speeding explain why traffic just keeps speeding. Pedestrians and residents are left to mingle with huge HGV lorries, employee vehicles, contractors/couriers etc. We dread the consequences if green belt status was removed and they expanded even further as they have already said - “as the business is growing these numbers will increase year by year”. This road is already dangerous especially for people on foot and those of us trying to pull in and out of our driveways. Any further increase in traffic horrifies us and is totally unsustainable. • The promised new entrance/exit road from their premises onto the A413 never materialises so the majority of this traffic all heads down to the A412 via a country lane, which is the main entrance/exit to Higher Denham. • Development of land North of Denham Roundabout: Why has this site been allocated or proposed for development instead of a brownfield site? We object to a hotel or any buildings being built here – you get a taste of the chaos the extra traffic would generate when the boot sale is on. Iver and Beaconsfield which both adjoin Denham, have large housing allocations. Traffic from these developments plus any additional building on/near or around the boot sale site would make congestion around the Denham roundabout onwards into Uxbridge, A40, M40, A412 and probably the M25 plus other destinations, even worse. Furthermore, the Master Brewer hotel just down the road went derelict. Now we already have a large hotel in Denham and at least 2 hotels in Uxbridge. Last week I could not get parked at 09.20 a.m. in Denham Station parade @ Denham Green to go into Boots to pick up my prescription. I had to go home without it. This morning there were warnings on teletext of severe traffic congestion through Denham. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not These proposals seem to us a clear breach of government green belt policies and goes against Bucks County Council’s policy of protecting the green belt. believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3331 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220952 Full Name Mr Steve Menzies ID 2375 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you

3332 consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do 1. Development of Land to North of Denham Roundabout not believe this policy to be We consider the proposed development to be an unnecessary destruction of green belt, which will damage and affect detrimentally the entrance to The Colne Valley Park. positively prepared please Furthermore, the junction of the A40 and M40 is a major junction for traffic joining and leaving the M40, and would be unable to cope with the additional traffic generated explain why by all of the proposed developments in the Draft Local Plan. PP Mods - Please specify as There are still many brownfield sites in the area, which are under-utilised and could provide alternative locations for the proposed office and hotel developments. precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3333 Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220775 Full Name Mrs Mary Jordan ID 2154 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you

3334 consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as

3335 precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We do not need a hotel and EVEN MORE offices in this area. Uxbridge is already an ‘office town’. not believe this policy to be It will cause EVEN MORE traffic chaos at the A40 junction/M40 and from there, along the A4020 into Uxbridge, which is already congested at the best of times. positively prepared please explain why As a resident living in Knighton Way Lane it is not easy to exit onto, or enter from, the A4020, due to the heavy traffic, at any time of the day. We also have the added HOAC ‘proposal’ to use land at the end of Knighton Way Lane. I am unsure at what stage this is at, hence more traffic coming and going, from the roundabout, along the A412 Denham Road, towards Iver Heath, where I believe the access will be, and, who knows, is our lane going to be used for access too???? This all adds up to an horrendous amount of traffic around the Denham roundabout, and in Denham and surrounding areas. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220778 Full Name Geoff Gale ID 2156

3336 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3337 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do This proposed development, on green belt land, is unnecessary because it is close to neither Denham nor Uxbridge stations, there are no conference or sporting venues in not believe this policy to be close proximity and there is insufficient alternative transport infrastructure to support it. There is no apparent requirement for a hotel at this location and the recently opened positively prepared please hotel at Langley Park is only a short distance away. explain why Denham Roundabout is extremely busy at peak hours and between 16:00 and 18:30 most week days traffic tails back from the junction with the A412 Denham Avenue. Adding traffic to this already congested junction will only increase the levels of pollutants. The current fields have the effect of absorbing Carbon Dioxide and are beneficial to the environment. Additionally, between 05:30 and 09:30 there is extremely heavy traffic on the A40/M40 between Swakeleys Roundabout and the junction with the M25. This high level of traffic negates any benefit of such a hotel as far as access to Heathrow Airport is concerned. Access to Pinewood Studios at Iver Heath is similarly affected. The situation with the A40/M40/M25 has been getting worse for the past 20 years and the hours during which traffic flow is reduced to a snails pace become longer. Deliberately making the situation worse, by increasing the number of vehicles using these roads, will add to the burden of reducing UK emissions of NOx and Carbon Dioxide. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3338 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220797 Full Name Mrs Veronica Hamberger ID 2174 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3339 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3340 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do To maybe take over The Green Belt Land. At Denham Roundabout. Are you all completely insane? Have anyone ever bothered to go to Denham Roundabout and see the not believe this policy to be holdups there every morning and evening. It is unbelievable. positively prepared please Traffic coming from every direction. Four weeks ago myself and a friend at 4.15 pm. We were sitting at the traffic lights on red waiting for the lights to change . Suddenly a explain why new driver bashed straight into the back of our car. My friends car is a complete write off. ( You are welcome to check these details). We both suffered wipe lash. And this is before you allow a Hotel and Offices to be built on this green belt. There are Hotels and Offices already all around our area. And I cannot believe how many Office blocks are Empty (and have been for years in Uxbridge. ). Why in God’s name can anyone ever think that this is a good idea?. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220980 Full Name Mr & Mrs Hall ID 2430 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details

3341 Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3342 Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do 1. Green Belt is being taken out to create a hotel and offices which have no bearing on the National Government Plan to provide additional housing. Less than a mile away not believe this policy to be in Uxbridge there are many office developments unlet and therefore the local area will not benefit from further office development. positively prepared please 2. Regarding the proposed hotel, there are many Brownfield Sites that could be developed in the area for hotels. explain why 3. The once a week car boot sale causes traffic chaos at the Junction of the A40 and M40 and to increase that chaos by having permanent additional daily traffic from offices and hotel will be detrimental to local resident’s health and well-being. In addition, the access to the Colne Valley Park facility will be severely compromised. 4. The residential houses in Priory Close already have unacceptable noise levels from the M40 and A40. To support this, the World Health Organisation Limit for continuous noise is 50db. A study has been conducted over a three month period where readings of between a minimum of 62db and 75db have been recorded at periodic times of day and night. The increase noise from construction and additional traffic thereafter to service the office and hotel will exacerbate the situation. 5. At this stage the height of the proposed development of a hotel and offices is unknown and will possible impact the privacy of occupants in Priory Close, particularly the houses that that abut the proposed site. 6. At this stage the main sewage that runs down Priory Close is often blocked and overflowing, and the addition of offices and particularly a hotel would require significant upgrading of the current infrastructure. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be

3343 effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221000 Full Name Pauline Linford ID 2479 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance?

3344 Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you

3345 consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The Denham Roundabout and roads leading to it often have very heavy traffic; as does the A40 going into London, and the M40 in the opposite direction approaching the not believe this policy to be M25. Building and increased population in the area would only add to these problems. Any increase in traffic would mean more air pollution, and would affect much of the positively prepared please surrounding area. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as Further up the A40 towards London at Hillingdon Circus there is an eyesore of a site that would be much better suited for such a development. This site has been derelict precisely and succinctly as for many years and does not lie within the green belt. possible how you would A really great idea would be to make the field in question a wildflower meadow which would help the pollinators which are in decrease, help remove carbon dioxide gas modify this policy to thus improving air quality and, also, help to delay the effects of climate change. With encouragement, many in the community could be brought together to help with such improve its alignment to an enterprise. this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not It would be disastrous if the green field site abutting the M/A40 were to be built on - in clear breach of Government Green Belt policies. believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221019 Full Name Hardev Shergill ID 2508 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3346 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3347 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do This is because it will significantly increase the amount of traffic and cause chaos. The development would also cause unnecessary destruction of our greenbelt and destroy not believe this policy to be the character of the village. It will also damage and deface the entrance to the Colne Valley Park. positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3348 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221021 Full Name Mr Benjamin Smith ID 2513 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including

3349 references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The development of the land where Denham car boot sale is held. We understand this land is intended to be used for a hotel and multiple offices. There are so many brownfield not believe this policy to be sites elsewhere which haven’t been utilised properly that I can’t seem to understand how this development can be granted before the brownfield sites have been used positively prepared please efficiently. At present we are already experiencing high volumes of traffic around this area and adding additional building traffic (trucks, vans, etc) would inevitably cause a explain why huge amount of inconvenience for all residents not even mentioning the disruption of air quality and noise pollution in what is already a fairly congested area. The housing issue. I am struggling to find reason with why South Bucks has been asked to take 59% of the housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks when Chiltern is so clearly the largest area. If this is to come to fruition then again (as previously stated) the traffic from works undertaken to build new housing will just continue to add to the already heavy traffic flow on Denham roundabout from the M40, A40 and A4020. Additionally, the infrastructure of the area would not currently support additional dwellings so further building works and cost would be required to fulfill a competent level of local facilities. We have recently moved to the area to our ‘forever’ home and intend to continue to grow our family here. The reason we chose Denham Village was due to a number of factors including the green belt restrictions as the scenery and current view of the area is simply beautiful. I hope you take this objection on board and seriously contemplate the upheaval and inconvenience of all residents when there are many more sites currently available that have not been effectively developed.

3350 In short, protect our green belt as promised. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220842 Full Name Beverley Johnson ID 3339 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3351 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3352 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do It will cause chaos to the traffic at the junction of A40 and M40. not believe this policy to be The entrance to the Colne Valley Park will be defaced It is not necessary to destroy green belt where there are other brownfield sites which have not been fully used. positively prepared please explain why South Bucks should not take 59 per cent of the housing when Chiltern is the larger area. The Denham roundabout already has serious congestion which will increase if there are proposed increased housing allocations in Beaconsfied and Iver. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

3353 Person ID 1220883 Full Name Lynne Barnyard ID 2322 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3354 Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do To whom it may concern, I am sending this email to object to the proposed development on green belt land north of the denham roundabout. First and foremost is the not believe this policy to be congestion it will cause, as it is we are virtually prisoners in our own homes until at least 10am every morning. I live in Priory Close and the proposed site will be at the rear positively prepared please of my property there is enough pollution from the traffic already this will make it worse. We do not need more offices when there are plenty of empty offices in Uxbridge! I explain why do not see why we need a hotel either unless of course it is for the offices you plan to build there are plenty of hotels and B&q’s around here already. I have lived here for over 40 years and have seen many changes to our lovely village and surrounding area the m40 the new denham roundabout to name just a few. We used to be a lovely quiet village now we cannot even talk in our gardens for all the traffic noise. Have you given a thought to how the emergency services will get through they have a problem now on the denham roundabout. We hear sirens all day and night most are ambulances trying to get to the m25 or up to Harefield heart hospital with hearts for transplants and blood etc. These ambulances have to get there as quick as possible, speaking as a ex.nurse I know how vital this is. From a very angry resident. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why

3355 Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220957 Full Name Leanne Murphy ID 2377 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please

3356 be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a

3357 modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The development of the Land to the north of Denham Roundabout is already a very busy roundabout especially when traffic backs up from the A40 and M25, should the not believe this policy to be land be changed into other uses this will cause more major traffic issues. I also think that with it being next to the entrance of the Colne Valley Park it will ruin the aesthetic positively prepared please and setting of the park and again added housing will contribute to the high volume of traffic and noise we already encounter currently. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not I also have a problem with the release of the land considering it is Green Belt and this is a breach of the green belt policy within Bucks County Council. believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221112 Full Name Alan Jordan ID 2665 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details

3358 Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3359 Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Living in Knighton Way Lane, New Denham, I am already having to live with heavy traffic on all local roads which, most on the time, makes it difficult to exit my road to get not believe this policy to be on to the Oxford Road. An office and hotel development nearby will only make matters much worse - there are already too many offices and hotels in nearby Hillingdon. . positively prepared please Also, I dread to think of the effect this will have with the extra traffic to the M40 and A40. Why is a part of the Green Belt being proposed for development when there are explain why Brownfield sites available? PP Mods - Please specify as I am also concerned that the housing proposal for our area is being used disproportionately to accommodate local housing requirements. The Chiltern area is larger - more precisely and succinctly as housing could, and should, be built there. possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3360 Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221116 Full Name Anthony and Beverley McMahon ID 2672 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be

3361 as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Area north of Denham Roundabout (the car boot field): not believe this policy to be We understand this green area is being considered for an hotel and offices. With the amount of brown field sites and other land more suitable for development in the area, positively prepared please removal of this land from the Green Belt appears to be completely unnecessary. The Saturday car boot clearly shows how heavy congestion builds on the already enormous explain why

3362 amount of traffic in the area and this is only on a Saturday not a busier weekday. It would become a much worse, more regular problem, with regular bottleneck on the roundabout at all times of the day, particularly when there are issues on the M25 as well. The area is already at a standstill around rush hour times, when problems on M25 etc add to the already heavy traffic heading for Uxbridge, London and the M25. To add further would create chaos. Housing developments: Additional housing in these areas does not make sense. The levels of traffic and congestion at Denham roundabout has clearly reached its limit already; the M40 and A40 leading to the M25 and Uxbridge/London often have long queues. Increased traffic in this area would dramatically hinder residents and businesses unless the road infrastructure was greatly improved. Local amenities such as schools, surgeries, water would be under stress if further housing developments were added to the already increasing numbers. Please reconsider these proposals to destroy Green Belt land in our area, and look for alternatives in unused brown field locations that have better road infrastructures. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221159 Full Name Marion Randolph ID 2677 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3363 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3364 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land north of Denham roundabout not believe this policy to be There appears to be a distinct lack of joined up thinking when It comes to the above. Denham roundabout is an extremely congested major hub for the A40/M40 and M25. positively prepared please There are daily radio reports regarding accidents/incidents which invariably include congestion on the M25, including the access slip road, with tail backs onto the M40/A40 explain why and the Denham roundabout. I am only too aware of the congestion as on occasions it becomes almost impossible to exit Old Mill Road. Also, the entrance/exit to Colne Valley Park and the Buckinghamshire Golf Club are off the Denham roundabout. To suggest the construction of a hotel and office complex adjacent to the roundabout will produce daily grid lock in the area. Have surveys been carried out relating to noise, traffic, pollution etc in the area? Housing It is my understanding that South Bucks is expected to take 59% of the housing allocation for both Chiltern and South Bucks. South Bucks i.e. Iver and Beaconsfield have been given large housing allocations even though Chilterns is the larger area. This proposal will also create additional congestion to Denham roundabout. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy

3365 Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1220995 Full Name Denise Poole ID 2473 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3366 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I absolutely object to this development- this is Green Belt Land and in this day and age where the environment is under threat - we need to keep as much open space as not believe this policy to be possible. We are incredibly close to Uxbridge and I cannot believe we need another office building or hotel. This is already a very busy area for traffic and we do not need to positively prepared please encourage any more - the car boot is bad enough with it’s traffic, noise and pollution- a hotel and office complex would be unbearable. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3367 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not Both Bucks County Council and Central Government have policies in place to protect Green Belt land - not to destroy it. believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221169 Full Name Debbie Reynolds ID 2710 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3368 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3369 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do When investigating plans for the local area I was given the impression that planning applications for the land behind and surrounding Priory Close had been declined by the not believe this policy to be council and would not be reassessed before 2025. However, despite the land being successfully used by the Denham Giant Carboot, I have found that planning applications positively prepared please are suddenly being re-examined. explain why Since we moved to Priory Close in January 2019, having previously lived in New Denham, we have noticed a large variety of wildlife, flora and fauna which benefit from the greenery surrounding our property. I feel that removing the land on which the carboot currently operates from the green belt would be a huge loss to the local wildlife and current residents, particularly children, who live within reach of this land. I also feel that traffic in this area is already a huge issue for Denham residents and those in the surrounding area, with traffic often gridlocked at the time we take our children to and from school. A development as large as the one planned would cause huge and sustained traffic issues as well as an increase in air pollution and obstruction to the popular Colne Valley Park and Denham Golf Course. Indeed there are already planned housing developments in Beaconsfield and Iver, which will already add be adding congestion to the Denham roundabout area in the coming years. Lastly, I feel that there are many brownfield site within South Bucks that are currently being under-utilised and are more suited to house building, and would urge the council to consider other options before granting planning permission for this development. On a personal note, we have chosen Denham as an area within which to settle our young family and are hoping to stay here for many years to come. The green spaces surrounding our property and the sense of community which we have found within the local area was one of our main reasons for buying here. We feel that the planned developments will damage the quality of life for our children and will also effect the value of our property should we chose to move. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3370 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221005 Full Name Moira Smith ID 2418 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant

3371 legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I live in Higher Denham and moved here specifically because it was in a semi-rural area which was protected by the Green Belt. not believe this policy to be I do not drive so I have to rely on public transport to take me to doctors, hospitals, dentist and opticians and shops etc. There are none of these facilities in Higher Denham. positively prepared please The large number of lorries going through Denham and traffic when there are hold ups on the M25 cause delays. I am extremely concerned as to how buses would run on explain why time if Denham became even more built up and busier. Beaconsfield and Ivor, both adjoining Denham, have large housing allocations. The traffic from these developments and any additional building planned for the land where the boot sale is held north of Denham would add to the congestion around the Denham roundabout and on into Uxbridge and other destinations. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3372 Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221012 Full Name Stephanie Gill ID 2489 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is

3373 not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as

3374 precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I would like to formally log my objection, as a local resident, to the proposed building of a hotel and offices on the field north of the Denham Roundabout, currently utilised not believe this policy to be by the car boot sale. positively prepared please I have become aware of the intended build via a Facebook community group, where much concern has been voiced. Should the intended planning go ahead the impact on explain why myself and other locals will be immense. The impact on the environment will, I imagine, be great too. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221020 Full Name Kimberley Smith ID 2512 Order 269 Number 11.14

3375 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of

3376 soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The development of the land where Denham car boot sale is held. We understand this land is intended to be used for a hotel and multiple offices. There are so many brownfield not believe this policy to be sites elsewhere which haven’t been utilised properly that I can’t seem to understand how this development can be granted before the brownfield sites have been used positively prepared please efficiently. At present we are already experiencing high volumes of traffic around this area and adding additional building traffic (trucks, vans, etc) would inevitably cause a explain why huge amount of inconvenience for all residents not even mentioning the disruption of air quality and noise pollution in what is already a fairly congested area. The housing issue. I am struggling to find reason with why South Bucks has been asked to take 59% of the housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks when Chiltern is so clearly the largest area. If this is to come to fruition then again (as previously stated) the traffic from works undertaken to build new housing will just continue to add to the already heavy traffic flow on Denham roundabout from the M40, A40 and A4020. Additionally, the infrastructure of the area would not currently support additional dwellings so further building works and cost would be required to fulfill a competent level of local facilities. We have recently moved to the area to our ‘forever’ home and intend to continue to grow our family here. The reason we chose Denham Village was due to a number of factors including the green belt restrictions as the scenery and current view of the area is simply beautiful. I hope you take this objection on board and seriously contemplate the upheaval and inconvenience of all residents when there are many more sites currently available that have not been effectively developed. In short, protect our green belt as promised. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3377 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221046 Full Name Mr Glenn Murphy ID 2516 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3378 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3379 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do As a resident living close by to one of the suggested sites I’m very concerned at the proposal of a Hotel and Office development to the land North of Denham roundabout. not believe this policy to be Surely this land is under the protection of green belt and also are there not other more appropriate sites within the county which are not green belt? As a council should you positively prepared please not be doing your best to hold onto any green belt land rather than getting rid if it unnecessarily. explain why Colne Valley Park is within this area, which we often walk to with my young daughter, in order to use park and walk the nature trails. The building of an office/hotel complex would surely compromise this area and have a negative impact on the park. Also, there’s the traffic consideration around the mini roundabouts. That is a major junction and if there is any kind of accident on either the A40 M40 or M25, it becomes clogged up with people trying to navigate around the accident. This also leads to dangerous driving around Denham village especially down my road Cheapside Lane as drivers speed down tight roads which they don’t know through frustration. I believe the Denham Village School may have already raised these issue to the council and requested some speeding controls be put in place. These traffic problems are already happening so I cant imagine the addition of a hotel/office complex will help resolve these issues, it will only exacerbate the problems. I’m sure I read that South Bucks is being asked to fulfil 59% of the total new housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks, this doesn’t seem sensible as the Chilterns is the larger area. Anyway I think you can gather that I do not believe the development plan is thoughtful or considered when it comes to greenbelt land, traffic considerations or sensible in terms of use of land or housing proposals. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221204 Full Name Lynette Hollender ID 2745

3380 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3381 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The reason for Green Belt status being granted in the first place to areas around London are even more valid and vital today than when they were first granted. Over building not believe this policy to be and under utilised buildings are causing a blight on our land and contributing to more social discord. The Green Belt is evermore important in the environment fight against positively prepared please pollution / climate change / residents health and well being. explain why Development of land North of Denham Roundabout This is directly behind where I live in Priory Close and will significant impact on my daily life and quiet enjoyment of my home and surroundings which was specifically purchased as it is in a conservation area. There are many brown filled sites which could be better utilised and also I do not believe there is the requirement for more office space in the local area as current buildings are under occupied. The construction work will cause disruption through noise / air pollution / vibration / impact on traffic and access due to construction traffic and inevitable delays. The resulting development will have a huge negative impact on the access to and enjoyment of the Colne Valley Park. It will lead to permanent congestion at the roundabout which is a major traffic through fare anyway and delay access to the village on a permanent basis thus impacting residents. There has been no notification about compensation for such a major change in our environment. This plan has not been properly communicated to the impacted local communities. Being on the website is not sufficient notification for such a significant and life changing development. Housing South Bucks has been asked to take 59% of the housing for both Chiltern and South Bucks but Chiltern where Chiltern is the largest area. Better utilisation of existing housing stock and brown fill sites is required in the first instance. Beaconsfield and Iver , both abutting Denham have large housing allocations. This will lead to significantly increased traffic and greater congestion at the Denham roundabout flowing from the M40 / A40 / A4020. It is extremely disappointed that such a significant potential change to the local environment and the large development have not been widely and proactively communicated directly to all residents. Especially disappointing as the potential Heathrow development felt it necessary to do leaflet drops and send direct postal communication but there was nothing for something so significant just hundreds of yards from by residence. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3382 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221065 Full Name Nimisha Sedani ID 2568 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant.

3383 Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the

3384 requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I would like to object to the local plan for the Denham roundabout area for the reasons stated below: not believe this policy to be Firstly, there will be severe traffic congestion at the already congested Denham roundabout and the roundabout that is north of it. Next, the greenbelt is appreciated by positively prepared please locals from the area, and taking it away is a breach of government greenbelt policies. As for housing, Denham is definitely not the right area to start building housing explain why allocations, whereas Beaconsfield and Iver have larger living/housing allocations and would work better traffic wise. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221230 Full Name Mr John McSwan ID 2779

3385 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3386 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The removal of Green Belt is a major decision which should not be taken lightly particularly without evidence as in this case. I live on the Oxford Road which is now an not believe this policy to be over-used and under resourced thoroughfare. We are over run by lorries speeding up and down, they drive to and from Spring Bridge nurseries, U turning across the duel positively prepared please carriage way at the top of Cheapside Lane, dozens daily. They drive over the verges without any consideration for the damage they do. Often they misjudge the turn so drive explain why into Cheapside, turn into Oxford Gardens reverse back into Cheapside then drive back onto the Oxford Road with little or no consideration for other road users. When another vehicle is behind them they drive down the slip road (Oxford Gardens) where they are well over the weight limit for that road ignoring the no entry signs to Lorries. At the slightest rain fall the road floods at the junction of Cheapside and nothing is ever done no matter how many complaints are lodged. The continual weight of the lorries is contributing to the damage to the drains. Even when flooded it doesn't deter the lorries they travel with the same non consideration for others either vehicles or pedestrians. If the Green belt is removed and permission given to develop the Denham roundabout site, which is already congested, there is absolutely no doubt that no consideration is given to residents in Denham. The existing two major congestion points on the Oxford Road (Denham roundabout and the Cheapside Lane junction) are already unmanaged and causing environmental damage to both the infrastructure, which is totally ignored by both the South Bucks Council and the Highways Department, as well as to air pollution. I have lived here for 35 years plus and the deterioration of air quality is obvious even without specialist equipment to measure it. And as no maintenance to the infrastructure is undertaken now it would appear the only thing being considered is ticking boxes and not people's lives. The local authorities need to deal with the existing concerns and requirements of the residence before giving permission to over load and destroy the area. If the Green Belt status is removed and the Denham roundabout site is to be developed Denham would just become a car park. It only takes a minor hold up, never mind a serious incident on any of the M4, M25, M40 or M1 or surrounding "A" roads to bring the roundabout to a standstill (which is a regular occurrence). Where access could be achieved for any development is a mystery as the existing routes are already over whelmed being a major cause of deteriorating air quality and environmental destruction. Before any consideration to remove the Green Belt the local authorities need to undertake a comprehensive study on congestion, air quality, health and safety and support for the existing community in both accessibility and infrastructure. We understand that our country is over populated and under resourced and housing is an important issue, but at what cost? It's all well and good having a roof over your head but no quality of life and in fact endangering health through congestion, stress and pollution. What does that achieve? London is working hard to cut air pollution, and if this goes ahead, you would be undertaking quite the opposite! How can it be justified at all. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3387 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221180 Full Name Mr Owen Worley ID 2702 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to

3388 be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why

3389 you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I feel that removing the land on which the carboot currently operates from the green belt would be a huge loss to the local wildlife and current residents, particularly children, not believe this policy to be who live within reach of this land. I also feel that traffic in this area is already a huge issue for Denham residents and those in the surrounding area, with traffic often gridlocked positively prepared please at the time we take our children to and from school. A development as large as the one planned would cause huge and sustained traffic issues as well as an increase in air explain why pollution and obstruction to the popular Colne Valley Park and Denham Golf Course. Indeed there are already planned housing developments in Beaconsfield and Iver, which will already add be adding congestion to the Denham roundabout area in the coming years. Lastly, I feel that there are many brownfield site within South Bucks that are currently being under-utilised and are more suited to house building, and would urge the council to consider other options before granting planning permission for this development. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221209 Full Name Ross

3390 White ID 2755 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's

3391 ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We are writing this email to object to the planning to destroy and build on the green belt land at the car boot sale field north of Denham roundabout. not believe this policy to be Our reasons for objection is as follows: positively prepared please explain why 1) The removal of green belt land is so unnecessary, when there are so many other areas ie brownfield sites that could be developed that don’t encroach on residential areas/boundaries. 2) Severe impact on the local community, disrupting areas for children playing dog walkers etc. 3) Cause immense damage to colne valley entrance. 4) Huge privacy issues especially the houses that back on to the proposed site. 5)Security problems, increased risk of burglaries from the extra increase in population. 6)Massive impact on the local wildlife that is thriving in the local green belt areas. 7) Increase in traffic and pollution, the traffic is chaotic enough without the added traffic volume at the Denham round about. 8) Whilst we as residents accept the problem that arises from the car boot Sale, to have permanent offices and a hotel would cause severe problems for all residents in the local community. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3392 Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not The destruction of green belt land is a clear breach of government policies and is against bucks county council policy which is to protect green belt. Please take all these believe this policy in points into consideration. This proposal will cause more harm than good in the long run. We need to preserve our nature and our green belt consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221316 Full Name Mrs Susan Macdonald ID 2966 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you

3393 consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as

3394 precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do This area in the Summer is used for a car boot sale. The traffic for locals and people just passing through the area is a nightmare. If this plan is to be a site for a hotel or/and not believe this policy to be office units the traffic will be total chaos. I sat in my car this week with just the weight of current traffic for over 45 min's, how will it be if this is added too. The slip road positively prepared please from Denham up to Uxbridge (via M40) has been at a standstill for months during peak times. This is not acceptable now, nothing has been done to relive traffic and you explain why are looking to add to it. Any incidents on the M25 are impacted on the M40, A40 and A4020 . Further expansion within this area would surely bring the roads to a total standstill. I use the Colne Valley Park on a regular basis with my Grandchildren (I used it with my own children), how will area be impacted by these plans? I also feel this yet another unnecessary destruction of yet more greenbelt. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221214 Full Name Mrs Carol Harrigan

3395 ID 2776 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3396 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Denham roundabout, the A40 and A412 are always busy in the rush hour, and when incidents happen on the M40/A40 or M25 then a very large amount of traffic reroutes not believe this policy to be through Denham causing chaos. positively prepared please This will also spoil the entrance to Denham Country Park and the Buckinghamshire Golf Club an have a serious effect on residents living in Priory Close and backing onto explain why this land, of which most of them would have purchased their properties because of the green belt land behind them. Reading the mitigation measures or this taken into account by consultants employed by South Bucks are very imprecise and produces no evidence. With regard to the percentage of housing which South Bucks have been asked to take is ridiculous. More housing should be taken in the Chiltern district which is not so congested and does not have major roads nearby which impacts local traffic. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3397 Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5493442 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221231 Full Name Jayne McSwan ID 2778 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant

3398 and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the

3399 examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The removal of Green Belt is a major decision which should not be taken lightly particularly without evidence as in this case. I live on the Oxford Road which is now an not believe this policy to be over-used and under resourced thoroughfare. We are over run by lorries speeding up and down, they drive to and from Spring Bridge nurseries, U turning across the duel positively prepared please carriage way at the top of Cheapside Lane, dozens daily. They drive over the verges without any consideration for the damage they do. Often they misjudge the turn so drive explain why into Cheapside, turn into Oxford Gardens reverse back into Cheapside then drive back onto the Oxford Road with little or no consideration for other road users. When another vehicle is behind them they drive down the slip road (Oxford Gardens) where they are well over the weight limit for that road ignoring the no entry signs to Lorries. At the slightest rain fall the road floods at the junction of Cheapside and nothing is ever done no matter how many complaints are lodged. The continual weight of the lorries is contributing to the damage to the drains. Even when flooded it doesn't deter the lorries they travel with the same non consideration for others either vehicles or pedestrians. If the Green belt is removed and permission given to develop the Denham roundabout site, which is already congested, there is absolutely no doubt that no consideration is given to residents in Denham. The existing two major congestion points on the Oxford Road (Denham roundabout and the Cheapside Lane junction) are already unmanaged and causing environmental damage to both the infrastructure, which is totally ignored by both the South Bucks Council and the Highways Department, as well as to air pollution. I have lived here for 35 years plus and the deterioration of air quality is obvious even without specialist equipment to measure it. And as no maintenance to the infrastructure is undertaken now it would appear the only thing being considered is ticking boxes and not people's lives. The local authorities need to deal with the existing concerns and requirements of the residence before giving permission to over load and destroy the area. If the Green Belt status is removed and the Denham roundabout site is to be developed Denham would just become a car park. It only takes a minor hold up, never mind a serious incident on any of the M4, M25, M40 or M1 or surrounding "A" roads to bring the roundabout to a standstill (which is a regular occurrence). Where access could be achieved for any development is a mystery as the existing routes are already over whelmed being a major cause of deteriorating air quality and environmental destruction. Before any consideration to remove the Green Belt the local authorities need to undertake a comprehensive study on congestion, air quality, health and safety and support for the existing community in both accessibility and infrastructure. We understand that our country is over populated and under resourced and housing is an important issue, but at what cost? It's all well and good having a roof over your head but no quality of life and in fact endangering health through congestion, stress and pollution. What does that achieve? London is working hard to cut air pollution, and if this goes ahead, you would be undertaking quite the opposite! How can it be justified at all. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221405

3400 Full Name Miss Keisha Daley ID 3150 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any

3401 modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do If you’re a frequent driver or resident of Old Mill Road, Priory Close, Lindsey Road you’ll be very much aware of the congestion already on Old Mill Road with the increase of not believe this policy to be parked cars making it difficult to drive safely onto the main Oxford Road. With the land being in such an area of heavy flow traffic in both directions - the A40 and M25 you positively prepared please can only imagine the increased traffic flow or possible crash rates increasing if the proposed plans took place especially as there are often closures on the M25 and drivers explain why are forced to use the Denham Roundabout as way of diversion. This will make leaving or getting home a highly challenging task. In addition to my objection for plans to proceed it has been bought to my attention that these development plans are clear breech of Bucks County Council policy to protect the green belt along with government green belt policies. Denham Village, is a fantastic community with beautiful areas to walk and take in the scenery. I fear this will crush the community spirit forcing a lot of life long Denham residents to move from the area, causing a huge breakdown in society. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3402 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221292 Full Name Mr Nicholas Humfrey ID 2944 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please

3403 be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a

3404 modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do - It will change the character of the area. The green spaces around Denham are very much part of what makes the area appealing. not believe this policy to be - The removal of the green belt and building on the land around Denham will remove the green gap around London. Denham will then expand into the London metropolitan positively prepared please area and loose its distinct identity. explain why - There are still brownfield sites elsewhere which could be developed. The council should provide assistance with unblocking the problems that are preventing these sites from being repurposed. - There are already too many cars in the area, and I am concerned about the additional noise and air pollution created there being more cars and roads. By converting green areas to urban, we are loosing the benefit of plants capturing the CO2 from out atmosphere. - I understand that Bucks County Council have a policy to protect the green belt. I do not understand why this proposal is going against that. - I believe we should protect the Colne Valley Park, as an internationally important area for wildlife. Building around the entrance with encroach on this important oasis of green. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221485 Full Name Mr Philip Stephens ID 3259

3405 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3406 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land North of Denham roundabout: not believe this policy to be The Denham Roundabout is already fairly notorious for traffic congestion. Why would you want to add to this and ruin the entrance to the Colne Valley Park and the unique positively prepared please Village? To introduce more traffic at that point seems crazy in order to build a Hotel and Offices! There must be many other brownfield sites elsewhere that could be utilised explain why and cause much less risk to the environment. 3. Housing. We have already seen considerable housing development in those areas near Denham and the traffic problems have considerably increased over the time we have lived in this area. The removal of the Green Belt in this area would mean that Denham would end up being an extension of Uxbridge and would lose its own integrity and the reason why it is a sought after place to be. We realise the need for increased housing, but feel that the Green Belt should be kept, just as the name implies, to keep certain special areas Green and intact. This Draft Local Plan on Denham shows no regard for the Greenbelt or the impact on Denham and brownfield sites should be the first areas to be considered and the development of these would be a plus. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3407 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5497940 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221395 Full Name Dr Jonathan Howard ID 3071 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3408 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3409 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land North of Denham roundabout: not believe this policy to be The proposed region lies within the Colne Valley Regional Park, the primary purpose of which is conserving and enhancing biodiversity. All birds, their nests and eggs are positively prepared please protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Certain rare species (Schedule 1 birds) receive additional protection. The kingfisher is a schedule 1 bird, and there is explain why at least one breeding pair of kingfishers in this area. The breeding area is approximately 400 meters away from the proposed development area, and approximately 200 meters from bodies of water used for feeding. The proposed area is also approximately 400 meters from the area HP surrounding Denham Place which is a designated Local Wildlife Site. Please see the attached satellite image, heron and kingfisher image, and refer to Map_Page_12.pdf. The penalties that can be imposed for contravention of these basic protections for Schedule 1 birds are an unlimited fine, up to six months imprisonment or both. The proposed develop will, without a doubt, interfere with the breeding, feeding and well-being of this species, and many others besides. Wildlife is of value in itself and we have a duty to ensure it has space to thrive. It is also critical to our well-being, and yet our local wildlife continues to decline. Two thirds of individuals in UK priority species with having been lost since 1970, and 1 in 10 wildlife species are now threatened with extinction in the UK. It appears that the Chiltern and South Bucks councils have adopted the use of the euphemism ‘Sustainable Development’, where what is actually meant is ‘Destruction of Habitat’. Bulldozing over fields adjacent to areas inhabited by rare species in order to build offices and hotels is not sustainable development. The Denham settlements and their immediate surrounds comprise a fragile and already declining ecology. The Sustainability Appraisal document specifically states “This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park and development at this location could lead to a partial loss of this regionally important resource”. Was this sentence missed during local planning sessions? Or was it just ignored? Further, “As Greenbelt locations, the current uses at the respective options are more conducive to high biodiversity than development for residential or employment purposes.” In Section 5.4 (Biodiversity) of the Sustainability Appraisal, it states that “Development at all potential Green Belt removal locations is anticipated to have a negative effect on biodiversity for various reasons”. With regard to Denham specifically: “Amenities and services are limited in the local area, these factors are likely to contribute to relatively high personal car use by prospective residents”. The roads around this area are already highly congested. Every house that has been bought and sold in Lower Road over the past six years has had its front garden paved over to make space for at least three vehicles. When I first moved to this area six years ago, my garden was visited by redstarts, siskins and bullfinches, greenfinches , warblers and numerous other endangered bird species, none of which have been seen in the past three years. The areas immediately surrounding Higher Denham include chalk grassland, flood plain meadows and wetland habitats. The fragmentation of this area due to development will further reduce the connectivity of adjoining areas for associated priority species. Hence this proposed development, in conjunction with the impact to nearby surrounding areas due to HS2, is simply unacceptable. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3410 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5497658 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221540 Full Name Shirley Cook ID 3383 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including

3411 references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Dear Sir/ Madam, not believe this policy to be I am writing to make clear my objection to the proposed development in this Green Belt area. ( Denham roundabout etc) positively prepared please explain why At a time when we are trying to preserve green areas like this I am incredulous that such a project as this is even being considered. In fact, just this very morning on the BBC news they were saying how so many trees needed to be planted each day to counter global warming effects. There is also the fact that such action would destroy flora and fauna in this area and thus habitats of many animals, insects and birds. Also, the area you propose to build on is one where there is already major traffic congestion at peak times. New housing or industry would further exacerbate this. It seems to be nonsensical to add to these traffic problems, creating even more pollution when we are meant to be mindful of these matters. There is, of course, the fact that many people enjoy this area for dog walking - it is close to the nearby Colne Valley Nature area - and will be greatly affected by any building. Many of these visitors ( including scouts and school children) come from nearby London and look forward to some peace and oneness with nature, just a short distance from their homes. Where will they go if this all disappears? There is also a weekly car boot held in the field in the summer months which brings business to the area in its own way and I know many older people who like going there to socialise.

3412 I hope you will consider all my points and think again about this. There are many brown field sites which I feel you could use for any new development. Please let this area remain GREEN as was intended in the first place. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221740 Full Name Mr Chris Harrigan ID 2777 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name

3413 Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3414 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Denham roundabout, the A40 and A412 are always busy in the rush hour, and when incidents happen on the M40/A40 or M25 then a very large amount of traffic reroutes not believe this policy to be through Denham causing chaos. positively prepared please this will also spoil the entrance to Denham Country Park and the Buckinghamshire Golf Club and have a serious effect on residents living in Priory Close and backing onto explain why the is land, of which most of them would have purchased their properties because of the green belt land behind them. With regards to the percentage of housing which South Bucks have been asked to take is ridiculous. More housing should be taking in the Chiltern district which is not so congested and odes not have major rods nearby which impacts local traffic. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3415 Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221422 Full Name Mr Angus Irvine ID 3142 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or

3416 regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do As I have only just learned of the plans for the development on Denham roundabout, I hope I am not too late to register my thoughts and issues. not believe this policy to be As I understood it, Green Belt was protected land under parliament and was not there as an option to remove as desired. I am worried now that if these changes go through, positively prepared please then it is a matter of time before another phase comes along to destroy another section of protected land. explain why As someone whose family have grown up using the country park, I have had issues in the past regarding the safe access across roads and the safety of cycling to and from the park area. The proposed development will surely have a very detrimental effect on this safe access and will lead to much heavier traffic useage and altered road and junction layout. I also understand that the area of concern is, in fact, much wider than just the field used for the boot fare, at present, and this, surely, is totally against the principle of protecting 'Green Belt' and saving open areas in and around the villages of Buckinghamshire. We need to be saving open areas like this and encouraging the use of other types of land space for development. Do we really need this development? Is this just another way to collect rent and rates while destroying protected land? Do we want to isolate the country park and discourage families from visiting, except by car?

3417 PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221486 Full Name Mrs Elizabeth Stephens ID 3258 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3418 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3419 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land North of Denham roundabout: not believe this policy to be The Denham Roundabout is already fairly notorious for traffic congestion. Why would you want to add to this and ruin the entrance to the Colne Valley Park and the unique positively prepared please Village? To introduce more traffic at that point seems crazy in order to build a Hotel and Offices! There must be many other brownfield sites elsewhere that could be utilised explain why and cause much less risk to the environment. Housing. We have already seen considerable housing development in those areas near Denham and the traffic problems have considerably increased over the time we have lived in this area. The removal of the Green Belt in this area would mean that Denham would end up being an extension of Uxbridge and would lose its own integrity and the reason why it is a sought after place to be. We realise the need for increased housing, but feel that the Green Belt should be kept, just as the name implies, to keep certain special areas Green and intact. This Draft Local Plan on Denham shows no regard for the Greenbelt or the impact on Denham and brownfield sites should be the first areas to be considered and the development of these would be a plus. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3420 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222334 Full Name Ms Judith Passingham ID 3718 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including

3421 references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Protecting Green Belt land not believe this policy to be Green Belt – Breach of Government policy positively prepared please explain why Government policy on this topic notes the following: The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt serves 5 purposes: (a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (e) To assist in urban generation, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

3422 This development runs strictly counter to points a), c). Green Belt – Eroding the integrity of the Colne valley The Colne valley is a special area, comprising a unique mix of rivers and lakes, marshy areas, rolling low hills, farmland and woods. It is an interesting green corridor around the west side of the M25, acts as an important bird migration route, and is much loved and appreciated by the residents of this area. It is an important amenity, whose future is being placed into doubt by various planning decisions and within this case, by the Motorway Service Station proposal specifically. The Colne valley website notes the following points about this area; The Colne Valley Regional Park stretches from Rickmansworth in the north to Staines and the Thames in the south, and from Uxbridge and Heathrow in the east to Slough and Chalfont St Peter in the west. Despite its proximity to the urban sprawl of west London, the Colne Valley Regional Park is a landscape of surprises. Covering more than 43 square miles, it features lush green countryside, pleasant village with traditional country pubs, bustling towns, river and canal-side walks. It is a world of spectacular diversity and hidden gems, a superb recreational resource. Discover its many wildlife rich habitats in 19 reserves, five country parks and along more than 200km of water-ways. The region’s heritage can be explored through its many visitor attractions. People have been living and working here for a long time – there is evidence of human habitation dating back 8,000 years. The Park’s many tranquil areas are easily accessed from west London and Slough, and handy for major transport links such as the M24, M4, Heathrow and national railway routes. The overall ‘integrity’ or cohesion of the Colne valley has been under a sustained and significant ‘attack’ recently with a number of major unwelcome developments agreed or proposed within its borders, namely; • Pynesfield gravel pits. This unwelcome development has reduced a large agricultural field to an industrial wasteland within the Colne valley, together with the previous Denham Park farm decision. • Free School. This development on farm lands (Wood Oaks Farm) which was mentioned in the Domesday Book, is situated right in the Green Belt with the Colne Valley on a field where large flocks of Golden Plover used to roam. • HS2. This development is currently ripping the heart out of the Colne valley within Harefield and across to the fields between the Colne Valley lakes, the A412 and the M25. Several industrial compounds and service roads are springing up across the valley, one in a field where skylarks were prevalent. • A major proposed development currently being considered to build 2 giant warehouses on land in Maple Cross adjacent to an important local nature reserve and very close to the lakes. • The Heathrow proposals which erode the Southern part of the Colne Valley to a great extent. The footprint of this activity, which is shown in Table 1, is enormous, and as noted before breaks the ‘coherence’ of the valley. Green Belt – Eroding connectivity between wildlife areas and habitats Connectivity and the development of contiguous areas for wildlife is an important topic. It is generally acknowledged that wildlife corridors are disproportionately important from the ecological perspective. It is also widely recognised that wildlife corridors are disproportionately important from an ecological perspective. It is also widely recognised that the long term trend of fragmenting and isolating wildlife areas has played a substantial role in creating a scenario where local populations of plants, animals and other organisms are no long sustainable. The Herts and Middlesex comprehensive document ‘Ecological Networks – a report on the current situation and priorities for restoration notes that ‘….Overall habitat connectivity, and therefore eco system integrity and resilience, is currently very poor in Hertfordshire…’. This proposal would serve to further erode connectivity between habitats along the Colne Valley and create further degradation. The report advocates building connectivities between sites, rather than eroding them as this proposal seeks to do. Other Objections and comments As long standing residents of the rea, we are totally dismayed at the scale of attack on the green areas around us. The service station proposal is the ‘last straw’. It appears as if the developer in this case is cynically taking advantage of the HS2 activities and the roads around HS2 to push a service station development at this point right in the middle of the green belt. It appears as if one development is effectively leading to another and before long, the characteristics of our landscape are being completely destroyed as developers eek to ‘infill’ between one development and another, rather than the objective being to protect and even ‘enhance’ the green spaces which the residents of this area so enjoy, and which support much wildlife. There is effectively a development ‘sprawl’ occurring within the Colne Valley through the accumulation of developments, and the uniqueness of the area and its ecological characteristics are now being completely compromised. We would also note that the material on jobs takes no account of the fat that local jobs will also be lost through this proposal through the loss of visitors to Rickmansworth Town Centre, and it takes no account of the fact that a reasonably size hotel is being currently built in Rickmansworth on a brownfield site, the fact that there are a very large number of hotels near Heathrow airport, and the fact that the hotel segment is being disintermediated to a large extent by concepts such as Airbnb. Finally, and having looked at the various material loaded on the website of which there are 200 distinct documents, many of which have been prepared over many months by professional organisations and lawyers, it is disheartening that the public have so little time to comment on these proposals, that the case is brought to planning in the summer holiday period when families with young children may be on vacation and so may miss the chance to comment (or even know about these plans). The site as presented as distinctly overwhelming and we cannot believe that it is in the interests of local residents that this important case is presented in this manner. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why.

3423 PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222396 Full Name Cathy Bryant ID 3781 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested

3424 modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as

3425 precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Development of the land to the North of Denham roundabout is an unnecessary destruction of green belt. It will cause a number of issues with the addition of extra traffic believe this policy to be on an already extremely busy junction of the A40/M40, which only has to be seen when either the car boot or a problem with the M25 to see how traffic already comes to justified please explain why a standstill and causes cues in all directions. It will be detrimental to the Denham Country Park and Colne valley park visitors centre. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222516 Full Name Marilyn Heath ID 3970 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of:

3426 Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory

3427 Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I cannot see any sound reason for your proposal to take the field adjacent to Denham Roundabout out of the Green Belt to build a hotel and offices:- not believe this policy to be Apart from the fat that there is, and has been for many years, a surplus of empty office buildings within three miles of the roundabout, it would cause unnecessary chaos positively prepared please as demonstrated on Saturdays when the car boot market is trading from the site. explain why the idea of a hotel trading 24/7 is also unacceptable placed directly in front of a an area leading into the beautiful Colne Valley Park Visitors Centre which provides a local respite area for Denham and Hillingdon residents from further afield. The filed which provides the 'lungs' for Denham should be preserved, particularly in light of the poor job our District Council has made in keeping the agricultural land, on the north side of the roundabout intact. The loss of agricultural capacity in this area is to be deplored. Why 'tinker' with the Green Belt areas of Denham Village, Higher Denham and Tatling End? Exactly what does that achieve? I and many others moved into this area because we wanted a village life style, certainly not end up in an urban sprawl. If taking Green Belt land is necessary for housing stock, then why not create a new village further into Buckinghamshire? Why despoil existing ones? Urban sprawl may create economic growth, but the environment, and thereby the residents, will surfer due to increased air pollute, car dependency and traffic jams to say the least. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy

3428 Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5499128 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222081 Full Name Alex Linford ID 3432 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3429 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We wish to object to the Local Plan. We have lived in Ruislip for over 45 years and now in Denham Garden Village for 10 years. During these years we, and our children, have not believe this policy to be enjoyed the facilities of the Colne Valley Park and the walks around the canal and Denham Village. positively prepared please It would be disastrous if the green field site abutting the M/A40 were to be built on - in clear breach of Government Green Belt policies.. It would change the whole area and explain why is unnecessary. (Further up the A40 towards London at Hillingdon Circus there is an eyesore of a site that would be much better suited for such a development. This site has been derelict for many years and does not lie within the green belt.)

3430 The Denham Roundabout and roads leading to it often have very heavy traffic; as does the A40 going into London, and the M40 in the opposite direction approaching the M25. Building and increased population in the area would only add to these problems. Any increase in traffic would mean more air pollution, and would affect much of the surrounding area. A really great idea would be to make the field in question a wildflower meadow which would help the pollinators which are in decrease, help remove carbon dioxide gas thus improving air quality and, also, help to delay the effects of climate change. With encouragement, many in the community could be brought together to help with such an enterprise. Just by coincidence, wildflower meadows have recently been mentioned in "Gardeners' World" on TV BBC Two and in "The Archers" on BBC Radio 4. If a wildflower meadow is a step too far, how about planting more trees - something we are all being encouraged to do at the moment but, please, no more concrete and roads. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222157 Full Name Dr J Walsh ID 3645 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3431 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3432 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The development for office accommodation and a hotel is not evidence based. In addition it places 40% of the required new office space for the whole of the district in this not believe this policy to be development. Most working residents of Denham commute to Slough or London. There are already 7 major economic sites in the parish one of which Capswood has been positively prepared please available for rent for many months, following the merger of South Bucks and Chiltern District Councils. This suggests that more office space is not required and the working explain why trend is unlikely to change within the plan period. The proposed development is at the confluence of a junction of major roads and motorways which carry queuing traffic throughout the day, in addition the building of HS2 of which no account of the effect has been taken in the plan has already added to the number og HGVs and cars in the area. The Heathrow expansion adding a further 5-10% traffic as flights are increased due to enabling technology before the 3rd runway is built will amplify the congestion. Neither of these factors has been taken into account. How can the SBDC modelling work conclude that no alterations to the road network lay out are needed but the solution is to divert the local bus 581? The development of this area of Green Belt is in danger of merging the settlements of new Denham and Denham Village only then being separated by the M40/A40 elevated section but not at ground level. The plan appears to have been hurriedly put together for release before the new unitary Council is formed and therefore lacks credibility and is not evidence based. The errors above have been used to inform a major decision leading to removal from the protection which Green Belt gives. This local plan is not evidence based for the proposed development North of Denham Roundabout. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3433 Policy 3 - If you do not Overall the plan is not sound in its release of Green Belt it is not consistent with National Policy which states "where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and believe this policy in justified". consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222162 Full Name Dr Paul Ward ID 3717 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its

3434 legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Protecting Green Belt land not believe this policy to be Green Belt – Breach of Government policy

3435 positively prepared please Government policy on this topic notes the following: explain why The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt serves 5 purposes: (a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (e) To assist in urban generation, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This development runs strictly counter to points a), c). Green Belt – Eroding the integrity of the Colne valley The Colne valley is a special area, comprising a unique mix of rivers and lakes, marshy areas, rolling low hills, farmland and woods. It is an interesting green corridor around the west side of the M25, acts as an important bird migration route, and is much loved and appreciated by the residents of this area. It is an important amenity, whose future is being placed into doubt by various planning decisions and within this case, by the Motorway Service Station proposal specifically. The Colne valley website notes the following points about this area; The Colne Valley Regional Park stretches from Rickmansworth in the north to Staines and the Thames in the south, and from Uxbridge and Heathrow in the east to Slough and Chalfont St Peter in the west. Despite its proximity to the urban sprawl of west London, the Colne Valley Regional Park is a landscape of surprises. Covering more than 43 square miles, it features lush green countryside, pleasant village with traditional country pubs, bustling towns, river and canal-side walks. It is a world of spectacular diversity and hidden gems, a superb recreational resource. Discover its many wildlife rich habitats in 19 reserves, five country parks and along more than 200km of water-ways. The region’s heritage can be explored through its many visitor attractions. People have been living and working here for a long time – there is evidence of human habitation dating back 8,000 years. The Park’s many tranquil areas are easily accessed from west London and Slough, and handy for major transport links such as the M24, M4, Heathrow and national railway routes. The overall ‘integrity’ or cohesion of the Colne valley has been under a sustained and significant ‘attack’ recently with a number of major unwelcome developments agreed or proposed within its borders, namely; • Pynesfield gravel pits. This unwelcome development has reduced a large agricultural field to an industrial wasteland within the Colne valley, together with the previous Denham Park farm decision. • Free School. This development on farm lands (Wood Oaks Farm) which was mentioned in the Domesday Book, is situated right in the Green Belt with the Colne Valley on a field where large flocks of Golden Plover used to roam. • HS2. This development is currently ripping the heart out of the Colne valley within Harefield and across to the fields between the Colne Valley lakes, the A412 and the M25. Several industrial compounds and service roads are springing up across the valley, one in a field where skylarks were prevalent. • A major proposed development currently being considered to build 2 giant warehouses on land in Maple Cross adjacent to an important local nature reserve and very close to the lakes. • The Heathrow proposals which erode the Southern part of the Colne Valley to a great extent. The footprint of this activity, which is shown in Table 1, is enormous, and as noted before breaks the ‘coherence’ of the valley. Green Belt – Eroding connectivity between wildlife areas and habitats Connectivity and the development of contiguous areas for wildlife is an important topic. It is generally acknowledged that wildlife corridors are disproportionately important from the ecological perspective. It is also widely recognised that wildlife corridors are disproportionately important from an ecological perspective. It is also widely recognised that the long term trend of fragmenting and isolating wildlife areas has played a substantial role in creating a scenario where local populations of plants, animals and other organisms are no long sustainable. The Herts and Middlesex comprehensive document ‘Ecological Networks – a report on the current situation and priorities for restoration notes that ‘….Overall habitat connectivity, and therefore eco system integrity and resilience, is currently very poor in Hertfordshire…’. This proposal would serve to further erode connectivity between habitats along the Colne Valley and create further degradation. The report advocates building connectivities between sites, rather than eroding them as this proposal seeks to do. Other Objections and comments As long standing residents of the rea, we are totally dismayed at the scale of attack on the green areas around us. The service station proposal is the ‘last straw’. It appears as if the developer in this case is cynically taking advantage of the HS2 activities and the roads around HS2 to push a service station development at this point right in the middle of the green belt. It appears as if one development is effectively leading to another and before long, the characteristics of our landscape are being completely destroyed as developers eek to ‘infill’ between one development and another, rather than the objective being to protect and even ‘enhance’ the green spaces which the residents of this area so enjoy, and which support much wildlife. There is effectively a development ‘sprawl’ occurring within the Colne Valley through the accumulation of developments, and the uniqueness of the area and its ecological characteristics are now being completely compromised. We would also note that the material on jobs takes no account of the fat that local jobs will also be lost through this proposal through the loss of visitors to Rickmansworth Town Centre, and it takes no account of the fact that a reasonably size hotel is being currently built in Rickmansworth on a brownfield site, the fact that there are a very large number of hotels near Heathrow airport, and the fact that the hotel segment is being disintermediated to a large extent by concepts such as Airbnb. Finally, and having looked at the various material loaded on the website of which there are 200 distinct documents, many of which have been prepared over many months by professional organisations and lawyers, it is disheartening that the public have so little time to comment on these proposals, that the case is brought to planning in the summer holiday period when families with young children may be on vacation and so may miss the chance to comment (or even know about these plans). The site as presented as distinctly overwhelming and we cannot believe that it is in the interests of local residents that this important case is presented in this manner. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why

3436 Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222294 Full Name Mr Cliff Thomas ID 3658 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies

3437 and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is

3438 proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do feel deeply concerned regarding the proposed development for Denham roundabout.This will add to more congestion for traffic in the area. not believe this policy to be I live in Landmark Place and we are having to suffer the continual noise of the lorries dealing with HS2 which starts early in the morning which is very upsetting for the elderly positively prepared please residents so we certainly don't wish to have more additional traffic. explain why I moved out of London to live in the green belt and I have no wish to see this built on. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222309 Full Name Gemma Thomson ID 3695 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details

3439 Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3440 Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We support this proposal not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not We support this proposal believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not We support this proposal believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3441 Policy 3 - If you do not We support this proposal believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222388 Full Name Matthew McEvoy ID 3784 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be

3442 as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I strongly object!! to the proposed destruction of green belt land in my area, when brownfield sites elsewhere in the district are under utilised due to the high costs in assessing not believe this policy to be them. Your proposal will damage and deface the Denham country park and Colne Valley Park visitor centre. This proposal will damage the needed green spaces people need positively prepared please to combat mental health and physical wellbeing it will also increase traffic based pollution and congestion. explain why

3443 PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222395 Full Name Mr Peter Bryant ID 3780 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3444 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3445 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Development of the land to the North of Denham roundabout is an unnecessary destruction of green belt. It will cause a number of issues with the addition of extra traffic believe this policy to be on an already extremely busy junction of the A40/M40, which only has to be seen when either the car boot or a problem with the M25 to see how traffic already comes to justified please explain why a standstill and causes cues in all directions. It will be detrimental to the Denham Country Park and Colne valley park visitors centre. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1213714

3446 Full Name Tom Campbell ID 6521 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details London Borough of Hillingdon Consultee Type - Please Local Authority select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-04-07 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is Yes this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to

3447 strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do As such, we would request that a short note is prepared which outlines the following: not believe this policy to be • The quantum of B1(a) and B1(b) floorspace that is required for South Bucks positively prepared please explain why and Chiltern Districts between 2016-2036. Please can this include a statement on how the supply-demand balance (Net Requirement) has been treated for plan-making purposes. • The proportion of this floorspace that has planning permission or an existing allocation within South Bucks and Chiltern. • The proportion of this floorspace that is proposed to be allocated on land outside of town centres and edge of centre locations within South Bucks and Chiltern. • The proportion of this floorspace that is proposed to be met in another part of the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.

3448 Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not •The proportion of this floorspace that is proposed to be allocated for land believe this policy in either in or on the edge of town centres in line with Paragraph 86 of the consistent with the National Planning Policy NPPF (2019) within South Bucks and Chiltern. Framework Feb 2019 At present, there is a lack of clarity on the overall need figure for new office floorspace that the Draft Local Plan is trying to meet and how Paragraph 86 of the NPPF (2019) please explain why has been taken into account. Whilst the relevant information may be contained within different parts of the emerging evidence base, it is not considered that it has been provided in an accessible and effective manner. Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222511 Full Name David Brench ID 3966 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you

3449 consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as

3450 precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not Furthermore, the proposal to release fields adjacent to Denham roundabout for a hotel and offices is sheer lunacy. Apart from ever-increasing traffic problem, you would be believe this policy to be removing one of the few remaining buffer zones between Denham and Uxbridge. Development of the 'Car Boot' site would seriously affect and deface the entrance to the justified please explain why wonderful Denham Country Park, Colne Valley Park Visitors Centre and Denham Village, a conservation area. If it becomes totally necessary it would be better to develop brownfield sites already ruined by unwelcome industrial use, ie Springbridge Reclamation with well document dust, road cleaning and road damaging problems. It is totally unfair and unreasonable to place a large part of the requirement of extra development on this part of South Bucks. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5499122 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1213695 Full Name Mr Richard Carr

3451 ID 4835 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Principal Planner (Borough Planning) Transport for London (TfL) - Planning Consultee Type - Please Quango select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-09-19 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is Yes this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's

3452 ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The site is close to the boundary with the London Borough of Hillingdon. TfL manages the A40 within London and so we would want to ensure that any potential cross not believe this policy to be boundary impacts on the strategic road network within London can be mitigated. positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be

3453 effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222536 Full Name Wendy Hobday ID 4319 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance?

3454 Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you

3455 consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am very concerned about the loss of Green Belt. It was set up to prevent London sprawling into the countryside, and has done a reasonably good job of that so far, but losing not believe this policy to be any of it jeopardises the main principle. positively prepared please I am extremely concerned about the loss of the field by the A40 in Denham, and even more so because, as I understand it, it is for housing. I know we need more housing, explain why but not in the middle of the Green Belt! I am sure this could be achieved by infilling in various areas. Please retain this in the Green Belt. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222740 Full Name Jessie Sims ID 4284 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3456 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3457 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do What are the reasons for Denham to be removed from the Green Belt, who would benefit from this, certainly not Denham's, and who has the authority to make these not believe this policy to be decisions. The building of a Hotel and Commercialise would take a very long time, no thought has been given to the people in Priory Close living alongside this. positively prepared please When, if all this is built, they will probably have to make the Denham Roundabout buffer to cope with all the extra traffic. explain why Over the years, small holdings have been demolished to make room for all this, the farm fields were cut in half, some each side of the motorway, not ideal. Think again, bad idea! PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3458 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222767 Full Name Dal Bassi ID 4275 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is

3459 not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land North of Denham roundabout: not believe this policy to be This is an unnecessary destruction of green belt for a hotel and offices, when many offices currently lay vacant, so building more offices does not make sense. A hotel at this positively prepared please location would serve no purpose either as again there are plenty of hotels in the near area, also there are still many brownfield sites elsewhere which have been under-utilised. explain why Surely the logical thing is to develop this and not destroy Greenbelt land which should and must be protected by Southbucks & Chiltern council! It will cause damage and deface the entrance to the Colne Valley Park, with the area already being affected by the future development of HS2! It will cause additional traffic chaos at the junction of the A40 and M40 which is a major junction for traffic and already suffers from traffic. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3460 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222894 Full Name Peter Scott ID 4393 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant.

3461 Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the

3462 requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The proposal to develop the land to the north of the Denham roundabout is also against Green Belt policy. The roads here cannot cope with any more traffic particularly not believe this policy to be during morning and evening peak times. positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222951 Full Name Mr A Whitaker ID 4420

3463 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness?

3464 Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am totally against this as it will cause untold traffic problems just like we have when the boot sale is on, it's a clear breach of government green belt policies, why do we not believe this policy to be need to be removed from the green belt anyway it's absolutely unnecessary we don't need any offices there is plenty of office space lying empty all over just drive around positively prepared please there is office space on Oxford road that has been lying idle for ages. We certainly don't need a hotel on this land its not beneficial to our community. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why.

3465 PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222957 Full Name John Bailey ID 4435 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested

3466 modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as

3467 precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do When driving out of London or taking the train out of London, Denham is the point where the urban sprawl clearly stops and one can see greenery, fields, woods. The green not believe this policy to be belt was designed to stop London spreading out and taking over. I live in Denham because it is green. I could choose to live 5 miles down the road in West Ruislip where it is positively prepared please completely urban but that is not what I want. Although it's not the case in the council, people in Denham CARE about protecting the greenbelt as that is what makes Denham explain why attractive and desirable to live! Denham already has the Denham Studios new build development, plus the new Mcartney and Stone old peoples home which have gone up in the last couple of years, which increase traffic and pollution. Enough is enough! More traffic and the roads will be gridlocked when coming off the A40. The proposed plans are a clear breach of both government and Bucks Council policies which aim to protect green belt. The council is contradicting its own policies and reviews, it makes no sense. This really saddens me. We are living in an age where protecting the natural environment is 'officially' the policy but in fact, the council could not care less. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223047 Full Name Mike Bowen ID 4565 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received:

3468 Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you

3469 consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Please note that I object strongly to the decision to erect a hotel on the car boot site at the junction of the A40 and the M401. If as we are told housing is the issue of the day not believe this policy to be then by all means build suitable houses not hotels. The loss of the car boot site is sad as it provided everybody an opportunity to recycle unwanted goods, which I thought positively prepared please was another issue of the day. explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why

3470 Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1221558 Full Name Matt Cadman ID 6142 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness?

3471 Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am writing to pledge my concern about plans to build on the current car boot sale site in Denham. not believe this policy to be My partner and I would both like to object to the local plan for 2036 and the idea to remove Denham from Green Belt land. This area has a lot of pressures already in terms positively prepared please of traffic, pollution, school places, train travel and the idea of further housing development in Denham raises great concerns in terms of strain on already stretched local explain why services. We believe it is essential to protect the Green Belt as it currently stands and that any destruction of it would be bad for future generations. It would not in any way be a solution for the serious effects facing us through climate change. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3472 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222033 Full Name B Singh ID 4298 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant.

3473 Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the

3474 requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I wrote to object strongly at this ridiculous proposal It will ruin our beautiful village and the natural beauty and wildlife in that area not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223092 Full Name Gwen Rochester ID 4681 Order 269

3475 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this

3476 policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Policy SPEP4 not believe this policy to be - North of Denham Roundabout : 16,000 square metres of office space, hotel of 120 bedrooms and ancillary staff. positively prepared please explain why - There are a number of offices at Maple Cross Roundabout, there is actually a 20,000 square foot office building which has been empty for over 3 years. Why do the council feel that there should be a 16,000 square foot office building 3 miles away when this was has been empty for so long? - Maple Cross Roundabout is not so congested as the roundabout North of Denham. There are already offices in this area, one of which is 16,000 square foot and empty. This area is better to be developed than North of Denham roundabout. There are fields around this area, why do you not develop round there. - I would like to know why there is a requirement in Denham for a 120 bedroom hotel. There are already a number of hotels in the area, why is there a need for a hotel in this area specifically? - This specific area is already congested, there is also a dangerous crossing to Denham Village across the A40 which has caused a number of accidents. - The traffic build up to get onto M40 and then into Uxbridge is terrible between 4 pm to 6 pm. - This is overdevelopment of a site on the edge of Denham Village which is a conversation area. - This development will cause huge pressure on traffic going onto M40 and into Uxbridge. - Building a hotel and a huge office space of 16,000 square feet and ancillary services (whatever that means) will have a detrimental affect on Denham Village. It would stop visitors going into Denham village, some may decide to eat at the hotel, others will think the area unsightly and visit somewhere else. This will have an economic affect on the 3 pubs and 2 restaurants in the village. - The housing area driving into Denham Village from this side is unsightly, erecting a hotel and office will be even more unsightly. - This area is a more rural setting from other areas in Buckinghamshire. It is the most unusual place to build an office and hotel, at the edge of a conversation area and a beautiful, historic village. The office and hotel will be very large and look completely out of place on the edge of a roundabout. - It will have a serious affect on Denham Village, and this rural environment with access to the Denhan Country Park and Colne Valley Park area. This area is used by walkers and cyclists every day. People will not visit when an office and hotel are built. It will make the area congested and turn it into a urban sprawl. - Having an office this size will mean there will need to be large car parks to accommodate cars. This will have a huge affect on pollution at an already polluted area due to the emergence from different directions onto the M40, A40, and Uxbridge. The development of this site does not take account of the following points outlined in the Local Plan:

3477 To provide a number of homes in the area 3.1.2 and 3.4.5 - To conserve the environment and continue to prosecute the environment 3.5 - Strategic objective to ensure M40 accessibility. 3.8 - To address the housing issue. Please see photos showing office space available at Maple Cross which is 2 miles from Denham and has better access to the motorway. This Office has been vacant for 2 years so I don't see the need to build a 16,000 square foot office at Denham Roundabout which is a bottleneck and an area where there has been a number of accidents. The Maple Cross area has good facilities and the office has already been built. It is unacceptable to build an office 2 miles down the road when another lies empty. You speak about the environment 3.1.2, 3.4.5 conserve environment whilst promoting sustainable economic growth and a building is left to rot, where you think its acceptable to build on green belt another office building similar size. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5502995 Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223160 Full Name Jagjit Brar ID 4717 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3478 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3479 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do In addition to the Parish Council’s concerns relative to Denham, Tatling End and Higher Denham being diente4ifed for removal from the green belt, the detail of policy SP not believe this policy to be BP13 is also of significant concern. All the comments raised above relative to other elements of the local plan should be considered to apply equally to this policy, whilst positively prepared please further specific comments are as follows. explain why The provision of the intended development relies upon its release from the green belt. This is considered inappropriate as it serves as a green lung helping to maintain a sense of openness and separation from the significant highway infrastructure. The development on this site would risk joining settlements as NE Denham and Denham Village would only be separated by the . As detailed relat5ive to policy SP EP4 it is considered that the level of office floor space required is excessive and does not take account of changes in working practices or the ability to limited further loses in more appropriate central locations through permitted development changes to residential. As highlighted within the NPFP, high tri generating activities should be within the town centre, including offices. Regardless, this is not considered an appropriate location for such a significant level of commercial development (40% of the local plans total office requirement). Similarly, the justification for the hotel is questioned. Will such a facility serve the proposed office development or will it fulfil a wider function to the airports and those visiting London? Again, the NPFPF makes it clear that ‘hotels’ are considered ‘Main town centre uses’ and should be provided in central locations. Provision at this site will only add to the traffic problems currently being encountered in the area. Despite assertions to the contrary, this site is not in a sustainable location and as evidenced by its proximity to the M40/motorway network will be dominated by car usage, in conflict with the aspirations of policy DM DP9 which is seeking to reduce reliance on the car. This will put extreme pressure on the proximate network, particularly the junction not the M4- and M25 J1A. There is concern that this impact has not been fully considered. The area around the Denham roundabout is highly congested, the M40, J1A M25, A40, A412, A413, A4020 all converge on the roundabout. These A roads are already at maximum capacity and in addition serve as relieve roads on those frequent occasions when the motorways came to a standstill due to accidents or traffic jams which happens two or three times a week causing these roads to be used as ‘rat runs’. The building of HS2 is leading to more HGV movements and this will continue into the plan. Quarrying in New Denham is also continuing into the plan period and this activity fees onto the existing locally congested road network. Regard also needs to be had to the development of the Denham Film Studios and Associated increased traffic movements. The expansion of Heathrow Airport will also impact this rea, bot during construction and in terms of visitor numbers. Iver and Beaconsfield which both about Denham also have large housing allocations. The extra traffic from these developments will and to the already congested area around Denham and the intended changes would serve to push the traffic problem further into Denham. The additional traffic from the intended office space, the 100+ bed hotel, the additional 1,450 houses in Iver, and 1600 in Beaconsfield suggested that the authority does not understand the present situation and no realistic/extensive/detailed mitigation measures are being proposed. Page 193-193 of the local plan provides a wish list of mitigation measures which underlines the complex requirements associated with the possible development of the site. It is questioned whether the need for the highway improvement sought through P BP134 (40 can be reasonably attributed solely to the proposed development of the site. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF makes it clear that ‘Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering genuine choice of transport modes’. The sites location at the junction of two motorways clearly illustrates the anticipated access arrangements for the proposed site. It is not an accessible location in terms of non-road methods of transport. With the increased vehicular activity there is significant concern about the possible increase in pollution levels in the area. Local conditions act as a concentrator and multiplier of pollutants. Denham is located in a low-lying river valley with a particularly micro climate frequently sheltered from prevailing winds. Additional development of the open areas between the A40 and M40 could be counterproductive to health. It should be recognised that the NPPF accords significant weight to the importance of SSI’s and their protection. For example, paragraph 175 b0 makes it clear that:

3480 ‘Development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), and should not normally be permitted’. In this regard, it can be noted that the site is within proximity to a number of SSI’s including Mid Colne Valley, Harefield Pit, Denham Lock Wood, Fray’s Farm Meadows, Old Rectory Meadows, Kings Cup Meadow and Oldhouse Wood. From reference to the associated Natural England consultation zones it can be noted that this proximity will necessitate detailed dialogue with NE. The trigger for referral in one of the zones is noted to relate to all non-residential developments of over 1,000sqm, as its the case here. The full impact of the SSSI’s has not been adequately explored. Given the above, although the release of the site might appeal as an easy win, it is clear that it is entirely inadequate and will have a range of adverse effects on the local community and wider area, including the highway network. As such it should be removed from the local proposals. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1222837 Full Name Gary Heneage ID 6965 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Chief Finance Officer Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3481 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3482 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not We would also like to comment on two of the non-residential schemes. believe this policy to be 1. Land to the north of Denham Round-about - 16,000m2 of office space, a hotel and ancillary uses; justified please explain why 2. Land adjacent to Taplow Station - 4,000m2 of office space. Office workers will require some primary care provision in the locality even if they live elsewhere and therefore developers should provide a proportionate contribution to health infrastructure. . In the case of the latter scheme, developer contributions currently can only come from Section 106. We would contend that as office workers would utilise local GP surgeries, a Section 106 Agreement should address some health infrastructure nearby. By way of comparison, please see the link http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South%20Oxfordshire%20Infrastructure%20Delivery%20Plan-%2004%2001%2019%20-%20final%20for%20website.pdf to see examples of where a Council (in this case, South Oxfordshire District Council) has been helpful in terms of outlining Health Infrastructure funding. Please see particularly Chapter 4 (Infrastructure and Types and Assumptions) and the specific health infrastructure mentioned for: Berinsfield - £1.468 M for “new and expanded premises for a health centre” (1700 homes) Chalgrove Airport - £3 M S106 for “new GP surgery” (3000 homes) Culham Science Centre - £3.024 M S106 for “new GP surgery” (3,500 homes) Grenoble Road - £2.592 M S106 for “contribution towards GP provision” (3,000 homes) North of Bayswater Brook - £950k S106 for “contribution towards GP provision” (1,100 homes) Northfield, SE Oxford - £1.555 M S106 for “contribution towards GP provision” (1,800 homes) Wheatley Campus - £TBC for expansion/reconfiguration of Morland House Surgery, Wheatley On a more positive note, it is good to see that the plan enables “biodiversity gains” and supports public open spaces however it would be good to read that it embraces development of “green areas” rather than protects what is currently in place. The overall plan lays out housing support for elderly people but does not provide any details as to whether there might be opportunities to deliver housing for those who have other conditions which challenge their independence. We would welcome further discussion on the points made in this response and will be following progress with implementing the Local Plan and IDP closely. Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3483 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223034 Full Name Tony Rints ID 4540 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3484 Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to

3485 participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I understand the need for a local plan proposal to prevent Government taking control. I also acknowledge the enormous amount of time and effort over the years to produce not believe this policy to be this report. positively prepared please I have looked at the Local Plan Draft SP BP13 North of Denham roundabout. The proposal being to construct hotel and commercial outlets. explain why This is Green Belt land and at present being used for long established car boot sale held on Saturdays. This is the cause of complete early morning deadlock on junction A40/M40. I wish to object to the above. 1) The proposed access of this development will be via A40/M40 and road to the Colne Valley and Golf Club. This will cause serious traffic problems. 2) Protection of Green Belt is important. Must explore all brown field sites before encroachment on the Green Belt. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223555 Full Name Dr Ronald James ID 5496 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout

3486 Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as

3487 precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not The plan is unsound because it includes developments that have not been objectively assessed. An area North of the A40 in Denham has been allocated for offices and a believe this policy to be 100 bed hotel. this need has not been objectively assessed because no evidence is presented for a need in this location for additional office space. there is office space in justified please explain why Uxbridge, in nearby Maple Cross and the council's own ex-offices in Capswood that have been empty for many months. This strongly suggests that there is no requirement for more office space in this area. Further, the plan provides no evidence that existing in existing nearby hotels the occupancy rates are close to 100% or even that the rates are trending in that direction. Policy 2a - Please specify as The plan should contain evidence for the need for extra office space and an hotel in Denham or should remove this space allocation. precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3488 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223597 Full Name Trevor Nash ID 5687 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make

3489 the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible

3490 Policy Level - PP - If you do Development of land North of Denham Roundabout: not believe this policy to be This proposal will add considerably to the already heavily congested Denham Roundabout - upon which the A40, A412, M40 and A4020 all converge. positively prepared please explain why Those responsible for even considering this site to be suitable for a development, which envisages a high volume of additional traffic, surely cannot have carried out sufficient due dilligence. The area will, especially at rush hours, become a traffic nightmare like that caused by the existing Boot sale...... except it will be twice every day! Think again Planning Committee - there must a more appropriate use for the land. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223398 Full Name Terence Ashley ID 4974 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of:

3491 Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory

3492 Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do I am a resident of Denham Green and there are certain elements of the Draft Local Plan that cause me concern, not only for myself but also the general environment for the not believe this policy to be current generation and for future generations. positively prepared please There is now irrefutable evidence that harmful emissions from stationary and queueing cars is a major contributor to the rising levels of asthma and other related medical explain why complications experienced by those living in urban areas. Councils responsible for the environment around major cities should be doing all they can to mitigate the effects of poor air quality. These councils are in a unique position to help South Bucks and Chiltern are one such council. However in your Draft Local Plan there appears to be little evidence that such matters have even been considered. The removal of Green Belt Land for development so close to areas of dense population where the air quality is likely to decline further, especially with the proposed development of Heathrow, seems outdated. The proposed development of land to the north of Denham roundabout for a hotel and offices will not only detract from families enjoyment of a day in the country, at Denham Country Park, but will cause an increase in traffic congestion and air pollution at an already heavily congested roundabout. This is not only irresponsible but in breach of the government's Green Belt Policy. There is no shortage of existing brownfield sites that would not cause such blight and should be considered first. In brief, for the reasons stated above, I wish to object to the development of land north of Denham Roundabout. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy

3493 Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223429 Full Name Mr Allan King ID 4988 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3494 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as

3495 possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not Traffic in the area, particularly but not exclusively during morning and evening rush hours, is horrendous and any additional development that would result from withdrawal believe this policy to be of green belt status would exacerbate an already intolerable situation. Denham roundabout, serving the M40, A40 and A4020, would become routinely blocked. effective please explain This land is currently used for a car boot sale which is quite bad enough and should be banned. The roundabout becomes impassable when cars are heading to the sale in why. the morning, and sometimes also when the sale ends. I am staggered to find that there is now a proposal that is apparently being given serious consideration for an office and hotel to be built on this land. This is a wholly unnecessary desecration of the green belt when there are many brown field sites that are yet to be exploited. The entrance to Colne Valley Park would be damaged and defaced and the traffic chaos referred to above would be made far worse. The car boot sale only takes place at certain times, whereas office and hotel traffic would be constant, the latter twenty-four hours a day. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223694 Full Name Gerald Marcangelo ID 5599 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details

3496 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is

3497 incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do There are several sites within my local area marked for development which I strongly object to. not believe this policy to be 1.18 (B24) land north of Denham roundabout positively prepared please explain why Proposed hotel and office development is within a greenbelt site. It would destroy an existing natural environment and dramatically increase traffic on an already busy route. Considering this is a route already planned for HS2 development traffic the additional traffic would bring the area to a standstill. Demand for commercial development is negligible, particularly as there are new developments on the Oxford Road standing empty since construction over a decade ago. No development of greenbelt should be permitted when brownfield space is available. Site 1.16 (B22) Area west of Denham Green near Denham Golf Club Proposal for 560 homes is unviable. Report claims schooling is available yet E-Act Academy (Primary) Ofsted report of 2015/16 shows 20places available with 40 applications and Vyners Secondary School Ofsted report of 2015/16 showed 180 places available with 985 applications. Clearly despite the reports claims, places are not available to meet the current number of applications let alone available to meet a further increase generated by the families occupying any new homes. There is no provision in the local plan to increase schools places in the area. Furthermore there is no provision in the local plan for increased healthcare/hospitals in the area to take into account the increase of population these homes would create, which according to national statistics equates to 2000 people! There is no provision in the plan to provide for better transport facilities, roads and infrastructure to take into account the already overcrowded road system. The excessive environmental damage which is being caused by the huge amount of construction work taking place in the area due to HS2 over the next 6 years, will be compounded by any further loss of greenbelt. Remaining sites listed for development 1.17, 1.18a, 1.18b again are all within greenbelt. The council's own sustainability report by Legus Consulting states the sites are unsuitable for development. Whilst the objections listed above apply to these sites as well, the fact that their own consultants advise against their development should demonstrate how totally unviable the proposals within the local plan actually are. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to

3498 improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1224167 Full Name Mr Rob Smith ID 5962 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Director Growth, Strategy and Highways Buckinghamshire County Council Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this

3499 modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible

3500 Policy Level - PP - If you do SP BP13 paragraph 1 not believe this policy to be Should all be subject to TA and local junction assessment. positively prepared please explain why SP BP13 paragraph 4 M40 Junction 1 is not a BCC section of Highway. This policy makes the development dependant on Highways England, and what is acceptable to them. Any required Scheme may not be viable for the level of development. SP BP13 paragraph 6 Where are pedestrian and cycle links being provided. This risk the development dependant on Highways England, and what is acceptable to them. Any required scheme may not be viable for the level of development. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223705 Full Name Maureen Marcangelo ID 5567 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body?

3501 Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section

3502 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do The local plan list several sites within my local area for development. All but two are declared as unviable within the councils own sustainability report so why does the not believe this policy to be council include them in the local when they have now evidence to the contrary. positively prepared please I object to the proposed development of the land North of the Denham roundabout as follows: explain why 1) it is within the greenbelt 2) The increased traffic would severely impact the already congested junction of the A40 / M40. 3) There is no proven requirement for commercial development on greenbelt when existing commercial/brownfield sites within the area stand empty. 4) Damage to the country park which is already severely compromised by HS2 destroying the site. 5) Vast swathes of natural habitat and wildlife already lost in the immediate vicinity due to HS2 and further loss of local greenbelt would impact even further. I object to the proposed development of the area west of Denham Golf Club for 560 homes as follows: 1) It is within the greenbelt 2) There is no provision for extra school places and healthcare in the area to cope with the increased demand generated by 560 homes. 3) Plan states two school within catchment area has places available. That directly contradicts Ofsted report says both the schools listed dramatically over subscribed. 4) The dramatic increase in traffic would bring the area to a standstill as it cannot cope with the planned increase of HS2 construction traffic let alone new residential traffic. The ecological and environmental damage that would be caused by the loss of greenbelt in the area, on top of the damage already being imposed by HS2, will be irreversible PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would

3503 modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1223750 Full Name Kenneth Rumball ID 5466 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make

3504 the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible

3505 Policy Level - PP - If you do The proposed development of the land north of the Denham roundabout for hotel and offices is an unnecessary destruction of the greenbelt and would cause immense not believe this policy to be harm to the environment. There is no substantiated demand for commercial development in the area as proven by numerous brownfield sites which remain unutilised and positively prepared please new build commercial property remaining unoccupied since completion many years ago as evidenced by property on the A40. The country park which is already under threat explain why from HS2 development traffic, would be further harmed by the loss of this natural habitat. The traffic generated by this development would cause chaos at the A40 / M40 junction which simply cannot take any increase in traffic. The proposal to build 560 homes in the area west of Denham Green near Denham Golf Club is unviable. In addition to the destruction of greenbelt this development would cause, there is no increased proposed in the level of infrastructure for health and education. A development of this size would mean approx. 2000 more people in the area with no increase in school places, doctor surgeries and hospitals. The local plan says school places are available but this directly contradicts the Ofsted reports which shows applications to the named senior school was 5 times over subscribed. To destroy greenbelt and add a ridiculous amount of new dwellings would cause irreparable damage to the environment by the increased levels of traffic and loss of natural habitat for wildlife. The area is already being forced to contend with huge amounts of traffic caused by HS2 construction and that has only just begun. HS2 has resulted in the loss of woodland and natural habitats which cannot be replaced. To allow these developments and remove great swathes of land from greenbelt is simply outrageous. Apart from the two sites detailed above, the remaining 3 sites have all been declared as unsuitable for development within the council's own sustainability report. Surely the local plan can therefore offer no justification to persist in listing them as development sites. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1224973 Full Name Environment Agency ID 6461 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received:

3506 Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1224972 Full Name Richard Burr Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence

3507 Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do We would like to see the below amendment to point h in the policy: not believe this policy to be ‘h. provision of Green Infrastructure, including providing biodiversity net gain, the creation of new links and improvements to the Public Rights of Way network within the positively prepared please site and beyond; and’ explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy

3508 Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1224136 Full Name Thames Water ID 6034 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Employer select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Thames Water Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1223956 Full Name Carmelle Textor Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible.

3509 Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Waste Response not believe this policy to be The scale of development/s is likely to require upgrades to the wastewater network. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with positively prepared please Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan. The plan should determine the magnitude of spare capacity currently available explain why within the network and what phasing may be required to ensure development does not outpace delivery of essential network upgrades to accommodate future development/s. Failure to liaise with Thames Water will increase the risk of planning conditions being sought at the application stage to control the phasing of development in order to

3510 ensure that any necessary infrastructure upgrades are delivered ahead of the occupation of development. The developer can request information on network infrastructure by visiting the Thames Water website https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-development. Additional comments Sewers crossing site and diversion may be required. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

Person ID 1224346 Full Name Whitbread Group PLC ID 4080 Order 269 Number 11.14 Title Policy SP BP13 - North of Denham Roundabout Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Other select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Whitbread Group PLC Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1224345

3511 Full Name Mr Alan Divall Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory

3512 Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not Policy SPB P13 – Land to the North of Denham Roundabout believe this policy in These representations are submitted on behalf of the Whitbread Group PLC who own land allocated for development to the north of Denham Roundabout under draft Policy consistent with the SPB P13 of the emerging Chilterns and South Bucks Local Plan. National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 Policy SPB P13 is considered to be sound in relation to the relevant tests and requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) February 2019, in particular please explain why paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires Local Plans, and non-strategic policies contained within Local Plans, to be: • Positively prepared • Justified • Effective • Consistent with national policy

3513 Policy SPB P13 is positively prepared in so far as it seeks to provide land to meet the Local Authorities employment needs. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) indicates a demand for an additional Class B1a floor space (between 2016 and 2036) of 40,000 square metres. The Local Plan also recognises the need to provide additional visitor accommodation through additional hotel bedrooms within highly accessible locations. Land to north of Denham Roundabout will deliver a significant proportion of that demand in a highly suitable and sustainable location. The policy is fully justified in line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Land supply for additional visitor accommodation on suitable sites and for employment generating development is limited and the Local Authority have undertaken an extensive process of site assessment, including through a Sustainability Appraisal, to identify sustainable locations for B1a an C1 development. That process has been undertaken in a robust and comprehensive manner. The allocation to the north of Denham Roundabout is effective in so far as the site is fully deliverable within the Plan period. The site is under single ownership with no legal or technical impediments which restricts its development for the uses proposed under policy SPB P13. The wording of policy SPB P13 provides an effective development management policy to ensure the site is developed in a comprehensive and sustainable way. Proposed policy SPB P13 is consistent with national policy in so far as it meets the tests of paragraph 8 of the NPPF in achieving the economic, social and environmental objectives of delivering sustainable development. The site has been through a thorough and extensive site assessment process, including all necessary tests that are required to demonstrate there are exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from the Green Belt. In summary, land to the North of Denham Roundabout provides a sound allocation essential to delivering the economic needs of the area. Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - Please attach any supporting evidence

3514