Classification: OFFICIAL PORep0567 (REDACTED) PART A – YOUR DETAILS

Are you:

An Individual An Organisation Other (please specify)

Personal Details* Agent’s Details (if applicable)

**Title Mr

**First Name Paul

**Last Name Warminger

Job Title (if on behalf of an organisation)

Organisation (if applicable)

**Address

Telephone Number

**Email Address

*if an agent is appointed, you may wish to complete only the title and name boxes and, if applicable, the organisation box but please complete the full contact details for the agent.

**Name and either email or address required if you wish to be added to the consultation database (see below).

Consultation Database (Mailing List) The Councils have a Consultation Database (mailing list) used to keep individuals and organisations informed about Planning Policy Documents across both Council areas. Documents include: the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents and Neighbourhood Plans, (please note some plans may not be applicable to your area).

Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council are the Data Controllers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. Individuals and organisations on the Planning Policy Consultation Database will only be contacted by the Councils in relation to the preparation and production of planning policy documents. The Councils will not publish the names of those individuals on the database but may publish names of statutory bodies and organisations at certain stages of the Local Plan process. Please indicate if you want to be added to the joint consultation database (tick box below). Please note: you do not need to tick this box if you received a letter or email notification from the Councils prior to the start of the consultation, as you are already registered.

Page 1 of 4 Classification: OFFICIAL PORep0567 (REDACTED) PART B – RESPONSE

Green Belt Options – Please Provide your Comments The Councils have concluded that land within the Green Belt will need to be released in order to contribute to meeting development needs to 2036. This is despite maximising opportunities on ‘brownfield land’ or sites within the built areas and on previously developed land in the Green Belt.

The Councils have identified 15 preferred options for development in the Green Belt after taking account of views expressed in a consultation earlier this year and testing a full range of options. All of these preferred options if suitable for development will be needed to contribute to our development needs. They are ‘preferred’ options at this stage as work is on-going to test their suitability.

Further testing following this consultation will establish what infrastructure (e.g. highway improvements, schools, medical facilities etc.) will be needed to support the options moving forward taking into account current pressures and circumstances.

We are consulting on these 15 preferred options to: a) Seek views to help determine their suitability for development; b) Help understand views on what type of development should be sought if suitable and what type of requirements (other than infrastructure) should be secured as part of development; c) Enable comments on the draft technical work supporting the selection of the preferred options; and d) Provide the opportunity for alternative options to be put forward.

Evidence and background documents are available here: www.chiltern.gov.uk/planning/localplan2014- 2036/evidence and www.southbucks.gov.uk/planning/localplan2014-2036/evidence.

When commenting please clearly indicate which preferred option(s) you are commenting on.

Please do not provide any personal information you do not want to be made publically available as these comments may be published at a later date.

I am resident within an area referred to as Preferred Option 1 to the North East of .

I OBJECT to the proposal to develop this land by building 900 dwellings and removing it from designated Green Belt.

The proposals are disproportionate and are inappropriate to the limited size of Chesham and will cause harm to the town because of the adverse impacts (loss of openness and identity of Lye Green, impact on nature and natural habitats, increased traffic congestion, road traffic accidents, crime, more strain on local parking and the Underground and on amenities such as schools, doctors’ surgeries and dentists).

There are no "exceptional circumstances" to warrant removing the site NE of Chesham from the Green Belt. Other settlements are far larger than the modest town of Chesham and have considerably better access to shops and services, employment, social facilities, and public transport.

The proposals result in the loss of quality agricultural land and will obliterate the openness, visual appearance and peaceful nature of Lye Green currently designated as Green Belt, significantly change the character of the area. The site is characterised by gently undulating topography, woodland, grassland, hedgerows, pasture and rural public footpaths. The development of the site for 900 dwellings will result in a significant visual impact on the landscape. Page 2 of 4 Classification: OFFICIAL PORep0567 (REDACTED)

The area is also subject to flooding due to the local ground conditions. The fields continually flood in winter and this might impact the suitability of the site in respect of this issue.

The community of Lye Green will lose its identity and become absorbed within Chesham, whose urban sprawl will threaten the nearby communities of , and , particularly from increased traffic; something that the Green Belt has successfully prevented over many decades.

In fact, the proposals are diametrically opposed to the Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework that states Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl, prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

The natural habitats of wild species will become eradicated through the implementation of these proposals. Our garden, backing onto the site, is regularly visited by a wildlife including deer, woodpeckers, owls, bats, badgers and other wild animals.

I question whether Chesham can cope with such proposed expansion, when the road and drainage infrastructure is at capacity and roads within, into and out of Chesham are already heavily congested, especially during peak hours (travel to/from work, school start/finish times and weekend shopping times). The site is too far from local shops and the underground, incentivising residents to opt for road transport. The proposed development will therefore increase congestion, travel times and road traffic accidents.

• Lye Green Road (B4505) is particularly congested towards the roundabout adjoining White Hill and Botley Road. Footpaths are narrow and rutted and traffic passes at speed, often exceeding the speed limit, making a pedestrian journey along Lye Green Road treacherous – this is already a key concern for children walking to and from School. Several major accidents including fatal accidents have occurred in recent years along Lye Green Road. The proposed development will directly and significantly worsen congestion and increase road traffic accidents on Lye Green Road. • The approach to Chesham Underground Station struggles to cope with existing commuter demands and is already congested and dangerous to motorists and pedestrians alike. The junction at White Hill/The Backs, pass Waitrose and at the station drop off point, where vehicles turn around in a pedestrian area, is particularly hazardous. As such the station is already too busy, even chaotic at times of pick-up and drop-off. The proposed development will adversely impact congestion and increase the likelihood of road accidents. • The 4-lane stretch of Broad Street A416 is often congested and is dangerous. I have twice lost a wing mirror from oncoming traffic whilst stopped on this narrow stretch of road. The road cannot cope with additional traffic. • All the roads around the proposed site have narrow sections and paths that cannot be widened to cope with volume in traffic. White Hill, Lycrome Road, the B4505 and Brushwood Road would become bottlenecks. The proposals would result in large commercial vehicles struggling to navigate these narrow roads, causing danger to oncoming vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. There is no footpath along most of Lycrome Road.

Page 3 of 4 Classification: OFFICIAL PORep0567 (REDACTED)

Chesham Underground is more popular than ever following the welcomed introduction of direct Underground services between Chesham and London. However, there are only two trains to London per hour during the rush hour, as opposed to eight trains per hour from , Chalfont and Latimer and Chorleywood. Chesham therefore has only a fraction of the carrying capacity of Amersham, Chalfont, Chorleywood etc. Given the single track, there is also no real possibility of significantly increasing carrying capacity in future. The train is pretty full some mornings at Chesham and full to capacity after a few stops. The service, and the station infrastructure, would be challenged to cope with significant increased passenger numbers from Chesham.

Local amenities such as schools, doctors’ surgeries and dentists are already full to capacity with long waiting times to secure medical appointments (up to 3-weeks to secure an appointment with a GP). The proposed site will increase the pressure on these amenities beyond their capacities. Demand outstrips supply. Local shops are non-existent. Parking in the town centre is already at capacity and would not be able to cope with the influx of thousands of new residents from the 900 new dwellings. The influx will drive up crime at a time where local police permanent presence has been curtailed.

In conclusion of the above listed grounds for objection, I urge that the proposal to build on the Preferred Option Site #1 on land to the NE of the town be scrapped.

Page 4 of 4