Classification: OFFICIAL Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils Emerging Local Plan (2014 – 2036)

Preferred Green Belt Options Consultation (Oct-Dec 2016) – Consultation Report and Responses

VOLUME 2 (Summary of Responses 0001 to 1000) November 2017

Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL

Purpose of this document

The following table contains a summary of the comments raised as part of the Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Responses 0001 to 1000. As many of the responses raise common issues raised in multiple responses readers are advised to consult Volume 1 which contains a response to the more commonly raised issues. Many of the matters raised relate are either site specific matters in relation to options/sites or to particular evidence base documents and will be considered further when progressing the Local Plan.

Full Responses

Full responses will be published on the Councils’ websites in due course should you want to see the responses in full – please note sensitive and personal identifiable information (other than the respondents name and organisation) will be redacted.

How to use this document

The Councils advise that readers use the indexes in Volume 1 to identify which Volume the response you wish to view is contained. You can use the find tool (Ctrl+F) if viewing electronically to then locate either the name or response number (suffix ‘PORep’). The responses follow a sequential order however where responses are identical within this group (in bold above) they have been grouped together.

Site Nominations

Given the level of detail on some site nominations put forward as part of the consultation the Councils have summarised these to just include a brief synopsis of the nomination, again full responses will be available to view on the Councils websites in due course.

Classification: OFFICIAL 1 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0001 Support Option 13 [could help remove HGVs, allow for expanded station car park, catalyse Noted Mr Graham Young additional school and medical facilities and provide affordable housing] Chairman, Richings Park Residents Association PORep0002 Object to process in general [website and documents difficult to navigate]. Object to Options 13 See Volume 1. Mr David Martland and 14 [Impact on character of Iver Village conservation area; need to exhaust all brownfield sites before Green Belt is released, particularly if this necessitates the relocation of HGV-generating sites. Secondary School construction supported]. PORep0003 Conditional support for Option 1 [Conditional on provision of affordable and/or socially rented Noted Ms Louise Dunn housing] PORep0004 Object to Green Belt release in general. Specific concerns for Iver area include impact on wildlife, See Volume 1. Miss Maureen Perry health services, infrastructure and openness. Alternative proposal to use Ridgeway Trading Estate for housing development. PORep0005 Support Option 10 [access to transport infrastructure]. Object to Option 3 [harm to AONB] and Noted Mr Steve Brown, Housing Option 2 [overdevelopment when combined with WDC adjacent proposals]. Conditional support The Councils will seek to Officer, Paradigm Housing for Option 6 if capacity scaled down. Object to any northern expansion of Slough. protect the AONB and require developments not have a detrimental impact on the AONB or its setting. PORep0006 Object to Option 1 [impact on infrastructure, traffic, flooding, school capacity, AONB]. Conditional See Volume 1. Dr Chloe Freestone support implied if due consideration given to design, heritage and infrastructure improvements. PORep0007 Object to Option 1 [infrastructure, traffic, education, healthcare, sewerage, flooding and quality of See Volume 1. Mrs Julie Morling life]. PORep0008 No specific comment on the 15 POs. General comment that affordable housing is required in Noted - The Councils will Mr David Shaw Chalfont St Giles to enable first time buyers to remain in the village. wherever possible seek to make provision of affordable housing available to those in the most need. PORep0009 Support for Options 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Conditional support for Option 9 on the basis Noted Mrs Sengul Sealy that supporting infrastructure is also provided. Object to Option 1 [impact on AONB and See Volume 1. farmland], Options 2 and 3 [coalescence of settlements] Option 4 [impact on infrastructure] and Option 6 [loss of too much Green Belt]. Conditional support for Option 5 [sufficient infrastructure already in situ].

Classification: OFFICIAL 2 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0010 Object to Option 3 [Principle of harming AONB and Green Belt; unproven exceptional See Volume 1. Mr Marek Pruszewicz circumstances; harm to Common Wood ancient woodland; increase in traffic, especially Penn Road; harm to wildlife; lack of support by Wycombe DC]. PORep0011 Conditional support for Option 1 [on basis that development includes affordable housing, Noted Mrs Patricia Easton enhanced pedestrian/cycle connectivity to town centre, specialist elderly accommodation and additional school and medical capacity. Inclusion of gypsy and traveller accommodation supported]. PORep0012 Object to Option 1 [harm to landscape quality, peaceful character and quality of life]. Noted – the Councils will seek Miss Christine Lee to address these issues as part of the more detailed design of any potential option. The Councils have commissioned a Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have. PORep0013 Object to Option 1 [impact on roads and traffic; pressure on schools; lack of specialist elderly See Volume 1. Mr Michael Shea accommodation; distance from town centre and services; need for new healthcare facilities; The National Planning Policy increased risk of flooding. Gypsy and traveller accommodation not supported]. on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0014 Object to Option 1 [exacerbation of existing high pollution levels; desire to exhaust brownfield site The Air Quality impacts are a Mr Michael Rowan before using Green Belt; unconvinced that Option 1 aligns with development needs of Chesham]. key consideration. See Volume 1- regarding exploring non-Green Belt Options.

Classification: OFFICIAL 3 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0015 Conditional support for Option 1 [requires 60% affordable housing, no self-build, provision of The absolute requirement for Anon additional healthcare and offsite gypsy and traveller accommodation]. Concerns raised about site’s affordable housing will be distance from services, impact on infrastructure and the dangerous nature of Lye Green Road. subject to overall development viability when balanced with other obligations such as infrastructure improvements. The National Planning Policy on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0016 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic and infrastructure. Seeks bypass for town]. The Air Quality impacts are a Mr William Russell Flint key consideration. See Volume 1. PORep0017 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic, specifically along A416 and Ashley Green; aggregated impact See Volume 1. Mrs C Russell Flint of planned development in Dacorum. Need for ring road identified]. PORep0018 Object to Option 1 [Impact of sewerage network, footpaths, gypsy and traveller accommodation]. The National Planning Policy Mrs Jean Staveley on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. See volume 1 for comments on the Infrastructure. PORep0019 [No comment made] Noted Mrs Sarah Furniss

Classification: OFFICIAL 4 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0020 Object to Option 5 [Flooding; lack of parking; width of Whielden Street; impact on local See Volume 1. Mrs Valerie Coker infrastructure; impact on heritage and character of Old Amersham]. The Councils will seek to conserve heritage assets. PORep0021 Object to Option 1 [harm to wildlife; overdevelopment; impact on traffic, especially around school See Volume 1. Mrs Caroline Jones hours; lack of school capacity; specialist elderly accommodation; distance from site to town centre and services; lack of supporting jobs; impact on drainage. Proposal to use Bovingdon Airfield to meet Chiltern development needs via Duty to Cooperate mechanism]. PORep0022 Object to Option 1 [impact on wildlife and biodiversity in the Lycrome Wood area in particular; The Councils will seek a net Mrs Vanessa Papavgeris exposure to chalk sinkholes]. increase in biodiversity as part of any major development proposal in line with National Planning Policy and protect important features. PORep0023 No comment on Preferred Options but object to David Wilson Homes proposal for housing and a Noted Mrs Yvette Phillips relief road on Green Belt land in Iver Village [impact on wildlife, traffic and pollution]. PORep0024 Object to Option 1 [impact on road network and traffic, particularly Berkhampsted Road. Need for See Volume 1. Not provided ring road stressed]. PORep0025 Object to Option 1 [impact of heavy construction machinery on road capacity]. See Volume 1. Mrs Margaret Pianta PORep0026 Object to all Preferred Options [harm to Green Belt; harm to ecological diversity; Brownfield to be The Councils will seek a net Mr Peter Wood exhausted first]. increase in biodiversity as part of any major development proposal in line with National Planning Policy. See Volume 1 – main issues regarding Green Belt and Green Belt Options. PORep0027 Conditional support for Option 13 [subject to:- construction of relief road; provision of additional See Volume 1. Mr David Orr school and healthcare capacity; provision of a station car park; consideration of the David Wilson Homes proposal; appropriate housing mix to include homes for elderly residents to downsize]. Object to Option 14 [access complexity; environmental issues from adjacent M25].

Classification: OFFICIAL 5 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0028 Object to Option 2 [major development in the AONB; settlement coalescence; pollution; traffic on The Councils will seek to Mr David Browne A404]. Object to Option 3 [impact on the AONB; impact on the Green Belt; harm to the character secure an appropriate mix of of Hazelmere; settlement coalescence; loss of agriculture; pollution]. Object to Options 4 and 5 housing to be met as part of [impact on heritage and character of Amersham Old Town; loss of footpaths; loss of farmland]. any development proposal; General comments – housing need unproven in area; brownfield sites should be used to address this is subject to further work true need; existing employment generating land does not align well with the Preferred Options. at the more detailed assessment stage. The Councils will seek to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of employment sites within the plan. This may include release of existing employment sites for alternative uses and protecting the sites which are the most important. The Councils are carrying out an update of the site assessment work as part of the emerging Local Plan. PORep0029 Options 2 to 15: Historic use means that there is potential for contaminants to be present on these Noted. Tracy Farrell sites, and therefore a planning condition is likely to be imposed to ensure the site is suitable for Principal Environmental use. Protection Officer Healthy Communities Strategic Environmental Protection Team PORep0030 Who devised the disgraceful plan to destroy greenbelt and concentrate development in one area See Volume 1 Alex Partington ruining the quality of life for thousands of people? Finding out how to have a voice and oppose this disgrace is hard to find and seemingly only available on the internet. PORep0031 Object to Option 1 [size and scale of proposal; harm to Green Belt; settlement coalescence; impact See Volume 1 Mr Darren Lingman on traffic and pollution; harm to setting and character of Chesham; need to pursue brownfield sites before Green Belt]. PORep0032 No fundamental objections to the proposed areas; where archaeological remains were recorded Noted Mr Phil Markham these areas will require mitigation; All proposed areas will require assessment and evaluation in Senior Archaeology Officer the form of geophysical surveys and targeted trail trenching; where Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Classification: OFFICIAL 6 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Buckinghamshire County features are likely to be impacted deposit modelling should be undertaken; where areas contain Council listed buildings, parks and gardens setting issues should be addressed; recommend the Local Plan includes a policy to protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment in all of its forms. PORep0033 Object to Option 7 [lack of infrastructure at NEC site; concerns about impacts of current See Volume 1. Mr Robert Gill developments in Charlton St Peter]. PORep0034 Conditional support for Option 2 [subject to:- brownfield sites also receiving due consideration; an See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Andrew and environmental assessment being carried out; provision of extra school and healthcare capacity; Carol Hornsby effective coordination of development between CDC and WDC; provision of sufficient off street parking; provision of appropriate housing mix; sympathetic design and vernacular]. Concerns about impact of development at Option 2 on:- Traffic on A404; parking at Holmer Green shops; settlement coalescence; utility infrastructure. PORep0035 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; insufficient capacity in existing infrastructure; loss of green See Volume 1. Mr Roger Bruce space; additional traffic on local roads; lack of capacity on public transport]. Existing proposals for Wilton Park as per SPD supported. PORep0036 Preferred Option 1: North East of Chesham. 1 - Width of Lycrome Road and not able to increase See Volume 1. Mr Eric Edwards width. 1A - No existing pavement for most of this road. 1B - Lack of on street parking other than for existing residents. 1C - The surrounding fields are working farm environment, growing wheat barley etc and essential grazing land for farm animals and have been for decades. 1D - The new development at the college has made parking more hazardous now, with the plans would be very dangerous for pedestrians, walkers and other car users. PORep0037 Object to Option 1 [harm to Green Belt; loss of farmland; increase to flood risk; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Prof David Thomas congestion and parking; distance from site to town centre and services; lack of school and healthcare capacity; concerns about housing mix of any new development]. PORep0038 Neutral comment on Option 9 [existing sports facilities within PO9 should be retained and Noted Mr Martin Watts enhanced]. PORep0039 Object to Option 7 [distance from services; lack of public transport; harm to nearby ancient See Volume 1. Mr Andrew Jones monuments; impact on built heritage of the Epilepsy site; HS2 already projected to cause disruption in area; harm to existing sports facilities on site; lack of fowl sewer capacity; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0040 Object to Option 10 [traffic congestion; flooding; harm to Green Belt] See Volume 1. Mr Graham Taylor PORep0041 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt; lack of education and healthcare capacity; harm to See Volume 1. Ms G Spree character of Little Chalfont; settlement coalescence; traffic congestion; harm to AONB;

Classification: OFFICIAL 7 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0042 Object to Option 9 [plan over-concentrates housing in Beaconsfield relative to rest of plan area; See Volume 1. Mrs Jennifer Suri impact on general traffic congestion and train capacity; lack of school and medical capacity; specific traffic impact on Lakes Lane; perception that Council are pursuing most cost-effective option rather than fairest]. PORep0043 Object to Option 13 [cumulative impact of various projects in the Iver area; impact on air quality The Councils are considering Mr Terry Fusco and pollution; lack of cross-boundary planning between SBDC, Slough and LBH; unknown impact the impacts of the various of Heathrow expansion; need for relief road before any further development]. major infrastructure schemes in the Iver area and any Green Belt Options taken forward may be delayed. Ongoing work may indicate the scope and scale of improvements that will need to be put in place to address the issues raised by these schemes. PORep0044 Object to Option 10 [traffic congestion; environmental impacts and pollution; additional noise See Volume 1. Mr James Foraye pollution]. PORep0045 Object to Option 10 [harm to Green Belt; impact of HS2; harm to mental health; harm to peaceful See Volume 1. Mrs Jessica Gordon character]. PORep0046 Support Option 14 [subject to- Ridgeway Trading Estate being transformed into housing; See Volume 1. additional medical and school capacity being provided; open space being provided]. PORep0047 Object to Options 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 [impact on traffic congestion]. Support Options 3, 11, See Volume 1. Mr Johan Schulten 12, 13, 14 and 15 [locations suffer from less traffic congestion]. PORep0048 My client and indeed the owner of Bailey Hill would like their properties to be considered for See Volume 1. Tommy de Mallet Morgan, further redevelopment. The Grove has grounds of about 16 acres, the south east boundary adjoins Managing Director, de an established residential development. Mallet Morgan Ltd. PORep0049 Object to Option 3 [impact on traffic; lack of existing infrastructure capacity; harm to access and See Volume 1. Mr Richard Mapp enjoyment of the countryside] PORep0050 Object to Option 10 [impact on traffic congestion; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of school See Volume 1. Mrs Gina Robinson capacity; obstructed access to countryside; loss of village character] PORep0051 Object to Option 1 [scale of development; impact on traffic congestion; harm to wildlife; increased See Volume 1. Mr David Tolfree flood risk; impact of gypsy and traveller provision; harm to AONB].

Classification: OFFICIAL 8 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0052 Object to Option 10 [settlement coalescence; harm to historic village character; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Ms Kimberley Bird congestion]. PORep0053 Object to Option 10 [harm to Colne Valley Park; impact on traffic congestion]. See Volume 1. Anon PORep0054 Object to Option 5 [access issues; impact on traffic; harm to wildlife; loss of public footpath] See Volume 1. Mrs Margaret Wiltshire PORep0055 Object to Option 5 [access issues; impact on traffic; harm to wildlife; impact on recreation] See Volume 1. Mr Desmond Wiltshire PORep0056 No Comment Noted Anon PORep0057 No Comment Noted Anon PORep0058 No comment on 15 Preferred Options. Object to any Green Belt release within Great Missenden. There are no Preferred Options Mr John Fletcher in Great Missenden. PORep0059 Object to Option 1 [lack of capacity on Lycrome Road; lack of parking; loss of farmland; increased See Volume 1. Mrs Brigitte Lenz hazard for pedestrians]. PORep0060 Support that no options from Great Missenden have been taken forward to the Preferred Options Noted Mrs Marilyn Fletcher stage [due to the potential impact on tourism, character and landscape quality]. PORep0061 Object to Option 2 and Option 3 [harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB; lack of infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr Ian Watson capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity; impact on traffic congestion; settlement coalescence; harm to character; harm to wildlife]. PORep0062 Conditional support for Options 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 [good access to railways and See Volume 1. Mr Michael Edmondson motorways; potential for planning gain from Section 106 contributions]. PORep0063 No Comment Noted Anon PORep0064 My preferred option is building on Brownfield sites or areas not used for agriculture or recreation. See Volume 1. Mrs Fiona Gill E.g. Not Iver Heath fields. Not Green Belt. The Ivers are at saturation point regarding traffic on the roads more housing means at least 2 cars per house. No one will be able to move! PORep0065 Build on brownfield sites before considering any green field sites. See Volume 1. Dr John Gill PORep0066 Green belt - too precious to lose. See Volume 1. Anon PORep0067 Support Option 14 [fails to perform strong Green Belt function]. Object to Option 13 [site Noted. See Volume 1. As part Miss Janet Quinn contamination; access concerns; proposed residential density; flood risk; inclusion of additional of the consultation the Classification: OFFICIAL 9 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response gypsy and traveller pitches; loss of open space; impact on pollution]. Councils Planning Policy team consulted the Councils Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0068 Preferably the use of brown field sites e.g Thorney Business Park. Noted Mrs Gloria Hooper PORep0069 No Comment Noted Mr Lionel Hooper PORep0070 I object very strongly to the current proposals. If you propose to release green belt, is it not See Volume 1. Mr Alan Holmes possible to have a road running parallel with the M25 towards Denham directly from the Ridgeway Estate with the current proposal all the traffic goes via Woodwane and the A412. PORep0071 Option 1. Iver Station/ Thorny B.P 2. Ridgeway Estate Noted Mr Mike Tilbury PORep0072 Conditional support for Option 13 [subject to:- construction of a relief road]. Object to release of See Volume 1. Mrs Brenda Tilbury Green Belt for construction of a secondary school as existing Everham site considered more appropriate. PORep0073 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- provision of affordable housing; adequate See Volume 1. Mrs Christine Adali infrastructure planning; provision of additional school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0074 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- provision of affordable housing; provision of See Volume 1. Mrs Rhiannon Scott specialist elderly accommodation; retention of existing and provision of new sports facilities; appropriate mitigation of additional traffic; consideration of appropriateness of gypsy and traveller accommodation]. PORep0075 Object to Option 9 [scale of proposed release; impact on character of town; harm to environment; Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Steve Pitman lack of school, healthcare and amenity capacity]. Development of existing MOD site supported. PORep0076 Object to Option 9 [traffic congestion; disproportionate share of development relative to other See Volume 1. Mrs Sally Lennon areas; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to character of town]. Information difficult to find on Council website.

Classification: OFFICIAL 10 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0077 Object to Option 9 [disproportionate share of development relative to other areas; impact on See Volume 1. Mr Rishi Suri traffic congestion; lack of transport capacity; availability of brownfield sites]. PORep0078 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- improved capacity of motorway junction; provision See Volume 1. Mrs Shirley Scriveher of full range of community services]. PORep0079 Object to Option 9 [relief road will be ineffectual as proposed – relief road needs to cross the See Volume 1. Dr Elizabeth King railway; impact on traffic congestion; prohibitive cost of development]. PORep0080 Object to all Preferred Options [reject need for additional employment land; insufficient provision See Volume 1. Mr Adam Pamment of affordable housing; better development options on brownfield land in Slough and High Wycombe]. Object to Option 10 [flood risk]. PORep0081 Object to Option 10 [traffic congestion; impact of HS2 and Heathrow expansion; lack of public See Volume 1. Ms Karina Bowen transport; unproven need for employment space; harm to Green Belt; lack of school and healthcare Denham Parish Councillors capacity; better alternatives elsewhere]. Object to Options 11, 12, 13 and 14 [traffic congestion]. PORep0082 Object to Option 10 [harm to character of village; harm to Green Belt; overdevelopment]. See Volume 1. Mrs Maria Tedeschi PORep0083 Object to Option 10 [impact on traffic and road condition; lack of school and healthcare capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Susan Heath harm to rural character; harm to countryside; exacerbation of existing problems with Denham Roundabout]. PORep0084 Object to Option 9 [disproportionate share of development relative to other areas; impact on See Volume 1. Mrs Hilary Winterborne traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to character of town]. PORep0085 Object to Option 9 [disproportionate share of development relative to other areas; impact on See Volume 1. Mr Phillip Winterborne traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to character of town]. Insufficient communication by Council. PORep0086 Object to Option 13 [harm to wildlife; site is contaminated by hazardous landfill; scheme as See Volume 1. Mr John Holland proposed does not include relief road funding; legal covenants on parts of site would impede As part of the consultation the deliverability; land may need to be safeguarded for HS2 works]. Object to Option 14 [site too small Councils Planning Policy team to deliver strategic housing; exposure to M25 noise pollution; potential historic contamination; consulted the Councils scheme as proposed does not include relief road funding]. Support David Wilson Homes proposal. Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. Classification: OFFICIAL 11 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0087 Object to Option 9 [lack of capacity in local infrastructure; lack of primary school places; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Edward Wielechowski parking; impact on traffic congestion; poorly thought through proposal]. PORep0088 Object to Option 13 [harm to Green Belt; overdevelopment in Richings Park area; cumulative effect See Volume 1. Ms Lisa Popa of various planned infrastructure projects; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking and The Councils are considering infrastructure capacity; insufficient details on phasing of proposed development]. Object to Option the impacts of the various 14 [concerns about amenity and quality of housing which would be deliverable on site]. major infrastructure schemes in the Iver area and if taken forward may be delayed. Ongoing work may indicate the scope and scale of improvements that will need to be put in place to address the issues raised by these schemes. PORep0089 Object to Option 13 [contamination from hazardous landfill; harm to Green Belt; harm to wildlife; See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Wingrove potential sterilisation of gravel and mineral reserves; proposed phasing of delivery could delay As part of the consultation the relief road; impact on traffic congestion; access difficulties]. Object to Option 14 [pollution, noise Councils Planning Policy team and site size make it inappropriate for strategic housing]. Support David Wilson Homes proposal. consulted the Councils Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0090 Object to Option 10 [impact on traffic congestion; impact on road safety; impact on parking] See Volume 1. Ms Catherine Bradfield PORep0091 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- provision of local centre; additional healthcare See Volume 1. Mr Jeffrey Bell capacity; improvement of bandwidth; public transport improvements into town centre].

PORep0092 Object to Option 10 [overdevelopment; harm to character of area; impact on traffic congestion See Volume 1. Mr Martin Emerson and traffic noise; lack of parking; loss of openness and green space; need to better use brownfield land].

Classification: OFFICIAL 12 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0093 Resubmission of Reg 18 Issues and Options Representation. [broad agreement with Core Strategy Noted Mr Simon Howton vision; Amersham community facilities should be protected and enhanced; Green Belt Secretary development not objected to per se but must be designed sensitively to limit harm to setting; Amersham Action Group Local Plan should include policies which protect Amersham Old Town and town centre retail; cycle and pedestrian networks to be enhanced]. No new or specific comment on any of the Preferred Options. PORep0094 Object to Option 11 [impact from Pinewood expansion, Crossrail, HS2 and Heathrow; loss of See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Dave Keene community asset; loss of green space; harm to wildlife; harm to character of settlement; impact on traffic congestion; potential for protracted disruption over many years; harm to Green Belt]. PORep0095 Object to Option 2 [overdevelopment; loss of community; harm to AONB; harm to wildlife; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs Susanne Lewington openness; lack of school and healthcare capacity; impact on traffic congestion; impact on air quality]. PORep0096 No comment on a specific Preferred Option. Support land to the west of Old Amersham remaining See Volume 1. Mr Tony Westhead in Green Belt to protect approach to Old Amersham Conservation Area. PORep0097 Object to Option 1 [overdevelopment; distance to town centre and services; lack of local See Volume 1. Mr Peter Casselden employment; impact on traffic congestion; harm to natural environment]. Central government Housing need is defined calculation of housing need should be resisted to encourage underlying causes of demand to be locally, not nationally. addressed at national level. PORep0098 Object to Option 10 [access concerns; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; impact on See Volume 1. Mrs Susan MacDonald parking; lack of exceptional circumstances given current surplus of office premises in District; concerns about funding sources]. PORep0099 Object to Option 9 [harm to character of the town; impact on traffic congestion; lack of car parking See Volume 1. Mrs Mary Day capacity]. Support the release of Green Belt land between Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross to better distribute housing delivery. PORep0100 Object to Option 1 [loss of open space and footpaths; harm to wildlife; lack of school and See Volume 1. Mrs Jennifer Cooper healthcare capacity]. Support vision of Chesham Society. PORep0101 I oppose the use of Green Belt land for housing See Volume 1. Mrs Vivian Palmer PORep0102 I oppose taking Green Belt land for bull dozers, trucks, JCB noise, upheavel etc. for housing See Volume 1. Mr Brian Palmer PORep0103 Object to Option 1 [unsustainable; overdevelopment; loss of green space; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Mrs Sandra Wright congestions; increased air pollution; lack of school capacity; loss of farmland; increased flood risk; The National Planning Policy inappropriate for gypsy and traveller pitches]. on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to

Classification: OFFICIAL 13 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0104 Object to Option 1 [disproportionate share of development relative to other areas; concern at See Volume 1. Mr Ian K Partington attracting overspill need from London rather than addressing local need only]. PORep0105 Object to Option 1 [loss of countryside; cumulative harm from HS2; overdevelopment; impact on See Volume 1. Mr Steve Downing traffic congestion especially school traffic; increased air pollution; lack of healthcare capacity; better use to be made of brownfield land]. PORep0106 Support Option 15 [will encourage and enable more sustainable journeys by train]. Need for better Noted Mr Vivian Nicholas connectivity between Taplow station and Burnham village identified. PORep0107 Conditional support for Option 15 [subject to:- provision of cycle and pedestrian facilities at Noted Rev Malcolm White station and linkages to surrounding residential development]. PORep0108 I vote for no greenbelt to be given up at all! Noted Anon PORep0109 Greater action must be taken to relieve Iver from the impact of HGV movements. Same message Noted Mr & Mrs Binning communicated to Bucks CC and Boris Johnson MP. No specific comment on Preferred Options. PORep0110 Object to Option 1 [overdevelopment; brownfield should be used instead; disproportionate share See Volume 1. Mr Matthew Walker of development relative to other areas; impact on traffic congestion, noise and air pollution; heightened flood risk; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of transport capacity].

PORep0111 Object to Option 1 [harm to Green Belt; danger of setting a precedent of Green Belt development; See Volume 1. Mr Derek Redmayne additional stress on infrastructure; lack of capacity in healthcare, schools, transport network and car parking]. PORep0112 Conditional support for Option 15 [subject to: measures to mitigate settlement coalescence; Noted. See Volume 1. Cllr George Sandy provision of enhanced station parking in anticipation of Crossrail; exploration of generating revenue from on-street parking; detailed exploration of infrastructure impacts to be achieved prior to development]. PORep0113 Neutral comment on Option 1 [not directly affected but sympathy for those who are; unclear how See Volume 1. Mr Daivd Frith much consideration has been given to brownfield sites; minimum size threshold for considering Support of Chesham Society sites for inclusion in HELAA should be removed; Chesham Society view supported; plan must noted. consider impact of development on Chesham’s geography, schools, healthcare and transport;

Classification: OFFICIAL 14 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response development should incorporate sustainable drainage; sewerage capacity should be better understood prior to development; development should avoid additional water abstraction; notice period for public exhibitions too short]. PORep0114 Object to Option 1 [harm to Green Belt; harm to natural beauty; loss of farmland; harm to wildlife; See Volume 1. Mrs Leigh Torr increase to air and noise pollution; lack of infrastructure capacity; distance from site to town centre and services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0115 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic congestion; hazardous conditions for pedestrians; increased See Volume 1. Mrs A Halpin flood risk; overdevelopment; lack of school and healthcare capacity; distance from town centre and services; settlement coalescence; greater focus needed on brownfield sites]. PORep0116 I have no objections to any of this going ahead Noted Dr Susan Procter PORep0117 Fulmer is not directly affected, but it is still troubling. Pinewood has already taken a chunk of The planning application for Mr Michael Saxby Green Belt. More erosion is proposed, albeit small. Road improvements should be the only development at Pinewood allowable development. Studios was approved by the Secretary of State, overturning the Council’s refusal of the planning application. The Green Belt assessments take account of the compound impact potential release might have on the wider area including Pinewood expansion. PORep0118 Object to Option 2 [insufficient evidence of brownfield alternatives being considered; precedent of See Volume 1. Mr Martin Little Green Belt release would be established; lack of infrastructure capacity in Holmer Green; dangerous access from A404 as proposed]. PORep0119 Object to Option 2 [insufficient evidence of brownfield alternatives being considered; precedent of See Volume 1. Mr Martin Little Green Belt release would be established; lack of infrastructure capacity in Holmer Green; Chairman, Holmer Green dangerous access from A404 as proposed]. Sports Association PORep0120 Object to Green Belt release in general terms. Conditional support for Options 1, 6, 9, 12 and 13 Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Jon McGowan [subject to retention of open space for wildlife and outdoor recreation]. PORep0121 Object to Option 6 [settlement coalescence; loss of character; overdevelopment; lack of capacity in See Volume 1. Mr Simon Batsman education, healthcare and parking; impact on traffic congestion; need to redevelop brownfield sites first].

Classification: OFFICIAL 15 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0122 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt; harm to environment; loss of open space; harm to wildlife; See Volume 1. Mr Alasdair Mace lack of infrastructure capacity; increased risk of localised flooding; lack of capacity in healthcare, education and specialist elderly accommodation]. PORep0123 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt; overdevelopment; impact on rural views; pollution from See Volume 1. Dr Erzsi Mace construction; harm to air quality; harm to AONB; loss of wildlife; developer profiteering; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0124 Object to Option 6 [harm to wildlife; loss of habitat; noise pollution; impact on traffic]. See Volume 1. Charlie Mace PORep0125 Object to Option 6 [lack of details on proposed infrastructure; lack of details on proposed costs; See Volume 1. The Preferred Mr Paul Osborne development of the proposed scale should be infrastructure-led; option site more appropriate for Options exercise is considering leisure and recreation facilities than residential]. the case for the principle of Green Belt release. It is not a detailed masterplanning exercise and is not intended to facilitate the forecast of costs associated with development or mitigation work. These issues and others will be the subject of further work at an appropriate time. PORep0126 Object to Option 1 [settlement coalescence between Chesham and Lye Green; contravention of See Volume 1. Mr Peter Threadgold Green Belt principles; lack of capacity in road infrastructure; impact on Air Quality Management Area; heightened risk of flooding; lack of Tube capacity and station parking; housing best targeted at brownfield sites not Green Belt]. PORep0127 Object to Option 1 [harm to wildlife; lack of road infrastructure capacity; lack of school and See Volume 1. Mrs Kate Shaw healthcare capacity; impact on traffic congestion; Local Plan should align more closely with vision of Chesham Society; housing should be developed nearer to proposed education sites]. PORep0128 Object to Option 1 [harm to Green Belt; loss of wildlife; harm to rural character; distance from site See Volume 1. Mr Jonathon Marris to town centre and services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking facilities; additional pollution; lack of school and healthcare capacity; additional flood risk; disproportionate scale of development relative to other areas in the District]. PORep0129 Object to Option 1 [lack of exceptional circumstances; unproven housing need post- Brexit and See Volume 1. Mrs Patricia Newland relative to employment opportunities in area; brownfield sites to be used first; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking capacity; increased pollution;

Classification: OFFICIAL 16 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response insufficient sporting facilities]. PORep0130 Conditional support for Option 6 because proposals contain development on one site, limiting Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Matthew Blatherwick sprawl; location is not immediately adjacent to surrounding settlements; site is not within the AONB. [Support is conditional on:- infrastructure improvements; road improvements; provision of additional parking; exclusion of traveller pitches; provision of affordable housing; provision of appropriate housing mix; protection of village’s rural character]. PORep0131 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; overdevelopment; disproportionate level of proposed See Volume 1. Mr Alan Morling development relative to other areas; impact on traffic congestion; increased air and noise pollution; strain on sewage & drainage; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; distance from site to town centre and services]. PORep0132 My preferred option would be either: 1. North East of Chesham 15. Land adjacent to Taplow Noted. Mr Chris Marianczak Station. PORep0133 Object to Option 1 [harm to open countryside and natural environment; harm to wildlife; unproven See Volume 1. Mr Grahame Weatherley housing need; brownfield to be built on first; harm to character of town; increase in traffic congestion; increase in pollution; increased flood risk; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of sites for required additional town centre parking; lack of public transport capacity; strain on emergency services; strain on waste disposal facilities]. PORep0134 I agree with the plans as presented Noted. Dr Jill Andrews PORep0135 Having reviewed the range of proposed sites for development, it appears that a good balance has Noted. Mr Justin Pannell been struck between the well understood need for new housing and business development in an area of AONB. It protects areas of Green Belt land which give this area its unique character. Recognising these are only a list of preferred sites, I would support those listed. PORep0136 The selected 15 areas appear to be the least bad options available. Adequate consideration should See Volume 1. Mr Richard Stoner be given to the impact on local roads and facilities of the resulting population increase. In particular, the capacity of schools and health centres should be (at least) proportionately increased. PORep0137 I will not comment on removing green belt protection, but definitely I support building of new Noted. Mr Monish Sengupta homes. I personally do not own a home and I want to. The number of houses required are far higher than the number of houses available. This is making the housing market expensive and unaffordable for people like us. Therefore I support building new homes. The very fact that the Chesham population is growing, we need to release land for more schools, shops and other infrastructure that is required for human habitation. PORep0138 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; overdevelopment; disproportionate level of proposed See Volume 1. Classification: OFFICIAL 17 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Parvez Hussain development relative to other areas; impact on traffic congestion; increased air and noise pollution; strain on sewage & drainage; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; distance from site to town centre and services]. PORep0139 I believe that self build housing is a great option in all areas of potential development. especially if Noted. Mr Koby Kulater this type of housing is zero environmental impact, ie can produce its own electricity, deal with its own sewage and emissions. It is about time Chesham will pioneer this type of self build and I am more than happy to lead on this. PORep0140 Partial conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- appropriate housing mix to include affordable See Volume 1. Peter Tiley housing; increased housing density to enable retention of part of option site as open green space; a cap on total number of dwellings; consideration of establishing a new town elsewhere; ensuring new retail provision does not harm existing retail in the town]. PORep0141 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- development being infrastructure-led with details See Volume 1. Mrs Damaris Barnes made public prior to development; provision of schools, healthcare, transport, parking, access roads, leisure facilities, utilities especially water and sewerage]. PORep0142 Object to Option 9 [additional pressure on Seer Green infrastructure - train services, schools, waste See Volume 1. Mr James Camp management, parking, GPs, dentists, super markets, libraries etc; impact on Seer Green character; increase in traffic; impact on AONB and Burnham Beeches; increase in pollution; lack of school capacity; object to inclusion of traveller pitches; downwards pressure on house prices]. PORep0143 Object to Option 7 and Option 8 [Green Belt inappropriate for development; overdevelopment; See Volume 1. Ms Lynne Taylor history of poorly thought-out planning decisions; lack of healthcare and school capacity; lack of road and parking capacity; lack of specialist elderly care; harm to wildlife]. PORep0144 Neutral comment on Option 9 [query over impact on council tax for development of new leisure See Volume 1. Council tax is Mrs Rachel Camp facilities; concern over Wilton Park 'MDS'; concern over the area proposed East of Beaconsfield not a planning matter. along the A355 to provide 'accommodation needs for gypsy travellers'; query over impact on school places]. PORep0145 Entrance to + from Whielden Street impossible. Drainage to Whielden Green a problem. Schools + See Volume 1. Anon doctors inadequate PORep0146 Object to Option 5 [impact on traffic congestion; area unsuitable for development; increased flood See Volume 1. risk and lack of drainage; harm to wildlife; loss of footpaths and recreation space]. PORep0147 Please consider the Land west of Back Lane and south of Bottrells Lane for release from the Green See Volume 1. John Smithson Belt. The Back Lane allotments must stay.

PORep0148 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- development being infrastructure-led with drainage, Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Richard Brock sewerage, education, healthcare and road transport taking precedence].

Classification: OFFICIAL 18 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0149 I agree that all the preferred options are appropriate for development in our area Noted. Mrs Shirley Heaney PORep0150 Conditional support for Options 13 and 14 in Iver Village [subject to:- residential development Noted. See Volume 1. Mrs Samantha Evangelista targeted at existing industrial sites; mitigation for HGVs and general traffic being included; relief road being considered; more trees being planted; provision of a secondary school]. General comment on consultation process [too much documentation for busy people to read]. PORep0151 Land at West Town Farm, Burnham (Ref 4.314) - In the light of the needs of the area, to follow the See Volume 1 Society of Merchant National Planning Policy Framework guidance and following a correction of the Part 2 Green Belt Venturers Assessment in respect of our client’s site, we would respectfully request that parcel 4.314 is included within an additional preferred area of land for release from the Green Belt. PORep0152 Object to Option 1 [unproven exceptional circumstances; harm to Green Belt; cumulative impact of See Volume 1. Mr Andrew Illing HS2; need to use brownfield sites first; impact on traffic volume and congestion; no need for The National Planning Policy gypsy/traveller accommodation; better solution for meeting development needs would be on Traveller Sites encourages construction of a new town; increased flood risk]. Object to Options 4 and 5 [increased flood risk; Local Authorities to proximity to proposed HS2 route]. accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0153 Object to Option 11 [performs Green Belt purposes strongly; overdevelopment; loss of amenity See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Robert Buck and recreation space; loss of important heathland]. Friends of Iver Heath Fields PORep0154 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt and AONB; poor road access to site; risk of See Volume 1. Mr Robert Cook pedestrian/cyclist/horse rider accidents; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking; potential for ‘development creep’]. PORep0155 Object to Option 8 [planning history on site emphasises importance of Green Belt; decision to See Volume 1. Mr Stuart Hawloms release is inconsistent with previous planning decisions on site; Holy Cross development already in Holy Cross is a committed train; lack of exceptional circumstances; loss of amenity space; loss of openness; harm to rural development which will character]. contribute to meeting current needs. The emerging Local Plan seeks to meet future needs and must identify sites on which development can

Classification: OFFICIAL 19 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response take place to meet these needs.

PORep0156 Object to Option 1 [unsustainable; topography of site presents flood risk; distance from town See Volume 1. Ms Janice Gardner centre and services; lack of public transport; lack of town centre car parking]. PORep0157 Object to Option 1 [goes against Green Belt principles; lack of capacity in healthcare, education, See Volume 1. Mr Martin Prett roads and sewage; loss of farmland]. PORep0158 Object to Option11 [loss of amenity space; harm to wildlife; loss of open green space]. Conditional See Volume 1. Mrs Christine Cullen support for Options 13 and 14 [subject to:- provision of affordable housing; developer-funded infrastructure improvements; provision of relief road]. PORep0159 Object to Option1 [threat to identity of settlement; overdevelopment; lack of school and See Volume 1. Mrs Sandy Wardle healthcare capacity; lack of road capacity]. PORep0160 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic volume; impact on road safety; lack of sewerage capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Diana Taylor potential environmental harm]. PORep0161 Recommend additional guidance is required in order to ensure new developments do not Noted; to be considered Cerys Williams contribute to emissions. further. Senior Environmental Health Officer, Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils PORep0162 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic congestion; lack of public transport capacity (bus and tube); See Volume 1. Mr Edward Berwick lack of consideration of Chesham town centre; flawed assumptions in general]. PORep0163 Stone Meadow should not be included as a site for development only on it being included in the This site is not included in the Mr Derek Randall green belt but also because development on land fronting the highway would spoil the compact Councils’ Preferred Options. nature of the village. There is other land which could be used for housing behind Mill Lane and Back Lane adjacent to /Bottrells Lane PORep0164 Object to Option 7 [600 homes yet to be built from existing permissions; lack of infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr Stephen Marchant capacity; disproportionate level of development proposed relative to other settlements; lack of detail on land supply from brownfield sites; poor existing transport links; out of date infrastructure study; CDC decision appears predetermined; NSE site should be retained for C2 class care homes; potential harm to NSE historic core; harm to Colne Valley and nearby ancient woodland; impact on traffic congestion; flawed consultation and assessment process].

Classification: OFFICIAL 20 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0165 Object to Option 1 [release not supported by local residents or Chesham Society; unproven See Volume 1. Mr Barry Holt exceptional circumstances; disproportionate scale of development; distance from site to town centre/services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of infrastructure capacity; availability of brownfield sites such as Asheridge Road]. PORep0166 Object to Option 7 [harm to Green Belt; CDC not trusted to restrict development via other See Volume 1.. Mr Nigel Dorian constraints; only C2 development supported; lack of sufficient infrastructure in CSP; lack of transport infrastructure in area; release of the site would leave northern boundary without a defensible feature; risk of urban sprawl]. Object to Option 8 [infrastructure needs not properly identified; CDC not trusted to restrict development via other constraints; potential harm to openness of scout camp]. PORep0167 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; harm to character of town; loss of identity of surrounding See Volume 1. Mrs Sharon Cookes settlements; loss of farmland; loss of amenity and recreation space; harm to wildlife and biodiversity; availability of brownfield land; overdevelopment; limited public transport connections; impact on traffic congestion; impact on road safety; increased air polliution; lack of community support]. PORep0168 Object to Option 1 [brownfield development preferred; lack of school and healthcare capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Lyn Tarn increased flood risk; impact on traffic congestion; increased pollution; potential impact on crime rates; lack of affordable housing; loss of house value]. PORep0169 From the meeting recently it appears that all 'Green Belt' and other designation have been totally See Volume 1. Sites visits were Mrs Brenda Orr ignored, quite apart from the fact that no one in authority had viewed the sites. If an inspection undertaken by officers to all had been made in summer the scout site would have full use and be 'used for purpose'. On that Preferred Options. Further basis Franks Field would not be a suitable site to include for hosuing, especially to have housing so testing regarding open space close to the campsite. The Epilepsy Site should be retained as it is designated and classified. Care requirements are also homes and advanced medical method are more suited. supporting the preparation for the Local Plan. PORep0170 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should be preserved; harmful impact of overdevelopment; lack of See Volume 1. Mr HW Spicer capacity in road infrastructure, healthcare, schools and parking]. PORep0171 Object to Options 4 and 5 [harm to setting of listed buildings; development would be inconsistent See Volume 1. Mr Chris Kenny with existing planning constraints for protection of Old Amersham]. PORep0172 Object to Options 4 and 5 [additional pressure on parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. See Volume 1. Mrs Janet Kenny PORep0173 I am please to see the much needed opportunity for new housing will be addressed in this Noted. Mr Oliver McMahon proposal in Iver as pert of the village

Classification: OFFICIAL 21 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0174 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; lack of healthcare capacity; lack of parking; existing See Volume 1. Miss Emily Headland permissions yet to be completed; lack of recreation/amenity facilities]. PORep0175 Object to Option 6 [harm to setting of homes on Long Walk; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Viresh Thakerar capacity within public transport network; harm to village character]. PORep0176 General objection to all Preferred Options [harm to Green Belt; harm to quality of life; impact on See Volume 1. Mr Marvin Rebeiro traffic]. Preference for provision of affordable and social housing on brownfield sites as alternative to Green Belt release. PORep0177 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion; harm to See Volume 1. Mr Stuart Taylor environment]. PORep0178 Proposal No.8. Loss of Green Belt. Loss of amenities to wide community. Unsustainable location ie See Volume 1. Mrs S Palmer infrastucture cannot cope. Inappropriate loss of Green Belt PORep0179 Green belt sites are getting planning if it can be proven there is no other site on Sequential Test. See Volume 1. Barclay Simpson Quill hall farm is only viable available site for CCRC. Tetlow king have 3 sites granted PP in Green belt. There are only 2 Extra care schemes in Chiltern and on top of that over 65 population is to increase by 10,000 2016. Model scheme is 150 - 200 units + Care home + Communal facilities which cost £2m on Full scheme. 15 - 20 acres depending on CCRC design. 2 bed units dormer bungalows and appts additional Extra care scheme may be included as well 55 2 bed units We think it is worth promoting this Good CCRC site in AMERSHAM AT QUILL HALL FARM as it is the only suitable, viable available in Chiltern area. PORep0180 Object to Options 7 and 8 [existing permissions yet to be completed; other settlements to take See Volume 1. Mrs Anne Bodman bigger share of development need; harm to Green Belt; impact of Brexit on demand for housing].

PORep0181 Object to Option 1 [loss of strongly performing Green Belt; impact on traffic congestion and air See Volume 1. Mrs Sheena Howell pollution; harm to local economy; lack of capacity in parking, transport network, sewerage network, schools and healthcare; geography of Chesham precludes further development]. PORep0182 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- significant provision of affordable housing; better Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Micheal Smith explanation of difference between size of release and size of developable area; development should be infrastructure led; improvements to transport and sewerage networks; provision of additional school, healthcare and emergency service capacity]. PORep0183 Support Options 10, 11, 13 and 14 [existing road and rail infrastructure in place]. Adjoining See Volume 1. Mr Russell White councils must find solutions under duty to cooperate before releasing any other Green Belt.

Classification: OFFICIAL 22 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0184 Thank you for consulting HS2 Ltd on the above matter we have no comments to make on the Noted. James Fox document. Safeguarding Planning Manager, High Speed 2 PORep0185 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; harm to Green Belt; availablility of brownfield sites in See Volume 1. Mr Tom Newman Chesham and elsewhere; infrastructure improvements required to suppport existing level of development]. PORep0186 I have studied the documentation carefully and fully support the 15 preferred options identified. Noted. Mr Malcolm Clark PORep0187 I believe that a policy of 'infill' in these areas where the infrastructure is already 'bursting' at the See Volume 1. Mr John Woodhams seams is entirely inappropriate. Surely the long term objective will only be attained by the building of more 'new' towns PORep0188 Object to Option 7 [availability of brownfield sites; overdevelopment; harm to character of See Volume 1. Mr Jasper Garnham Chalfont St Peter; loss of openness; harm to wildlife; lack of infrastructure capacity; distance from village centre and services; development should be above existing car parks in urban centres].

PORep0189 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure capacity; overpopulation; harm to Long Walk; impact on See Volume 1. Mrs Donna Culpan traffic; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0190 Preferred Options 1) Iver Heath 2) Burnham 3) Hazlemere. Certainly not Beaconsfield, Chalfont St Noted. Anon Giles, CS Peter, Amersham, Little Chalfont. Maybe Chesham. PORep0191 Object to Option 9 [impact on traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. See Volume 1. Mrs Emily Lucas PORep0192 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- road improvements; parking improvements; Noted. See Volume 1. The Mr Mark Lucas increased school and healthcare capacity; exclusion of traveller site from proposals]. National Planning Policy on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process.

Classification: OFFICIAL 23 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0193 Object to Option 9 [unproven exceptional circumstances; site performs Green Belt purposes; loss See Volume 1. Mrs Sandra Withnall of countryside; harm to character of Beaconsfield; harm to Green Belt; overdevelopment; lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion; poor public transport; insufficient drainage].

PORep0194 Object to Option 6 [unproven exceptional circumstances; site performs Green Belt functions See Volume 1. Paul and Elaine strongly; overdevelopment; harm to character of Little Chalfont; disproportionate level of Bollinghaus development proposed relative to other settlements in the area; impact on traffic congestion; harm to AONB]. PORep0195 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic; lack of capacity in road network; insufficient sewerage See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Chris and Kim network; heightened flood risk; insufficient public transport links; lack of school and healthcare East capacity; harm to environment and landscape quality; brownfield alternatives overlooked]. PORep0196 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; stress on village infrastructure; lack of capacity in school See Volume 1. Mr Alex Smith and healthcare facilities; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB; unproven exceptional circumstances; other settlement with bypass more suitable for development; access to site difficult; loss of biodiversity; more strategic solution required]. PORep0197 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; against wishes of existing residents; lack of infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr Ethan Hall capacity; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity; flawed methodology for identification of site; harm to AONB]. PORep0198 Support for Option 6 [opportunity to address housing crisis and affordability crisis in the district by Noted. Mr Darren Emanuel adding supply to address demand; site performs a weak Green Belt purpose; limited impact on wider Green Belt and landscape; private ownership of land ensures it performs no public function at present; infrastructure improvements will follow in response to development; Strategic location of village is currently underexploited; opportunity to provide significant levels of affordable and key worker housing]. PORep0199 Object to Option 6 [lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of information about infrastructure See Volume 1. The Councils Andy and Vanessa provision; impact on water supply, sewerage, retail and transport infrastructure; loss of openness; will seek to avoid inappropriate Bavington development would risk setting a precedent for Green Belt development; issues with site access; loss of employment generating impact on traffic congestion; loss of employment land at Honours Yard; loss of biodiversity; land where possible. unachievability of affordable housing]. PORep0200 Object to Option 6 [unproven exceptional circumstances; loss of openness; overdevelopment; See Volume 1. Mr E A Hayward harm to character of Little Chalfont; lack of information on infrastructure provision; harm to ancient woodlands and loss of biodiversity; harm to AONB.

Classification: OFFICIAL 24 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0201 Object to Option 1 [inappropriate for area; overdevelopment; proposed density would harm See Volume 1. These factors Dr Andrew Stoker residential amenity of future residents; lack of open space; harm to local transport networks; will be determined in greater impact on traffic congestion and road safety; loss of character for Chesham]. detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0202 Object to Option 1 [overdevelopment; lack of capacity in road network; lack of school and See Volume 1. Mrs Alice Stoker healthcare capacity; conflict with Green Belt purposes; disproportionate level of proposed development relative to other areas]. PORep0203 Object to Option 6 [settlement coalescence; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of natural See Volume 1. Mrs Sharyn environment; harm to wildlife; harm to ancient woodland; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of Assimakopoulos parking; harm to village character; lack of public transport capacity; harm to AONB]. PORep0204 Object to Option 6 [settlement coalescence; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of natural See Volume 1. Mr George Assimakopoulos environment; harm to wildlife; harm to ancient woodland; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking; harm to village character; lack of public transport capacity; harm to AONB]. PORep0205 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB; loss of openness; harm See Volume 1. Bin Wang to wildlife; settlement coalescence; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of local employment; harm to village character; development should be limited to non-Green Belt sites].

PORep0206 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB; loss of openness; harm See Volume 1. Minghui Yang to wildlife; settlement coalescence; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of local employment; harm to village character; development should be limited to non-Green Belt sites; lack of exceptional circumstances]. PORep0207 Object to Option 1 [unproven strategy for infrastructure delivery; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mr John Gannon increased air pollution; strain on water supply; harm to River Chess via increased abstraction; lack of parking; distance from site to town centre and services; harm to town’s character]. PORep0208 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure capacity; brownfield supply yet to be exhausted; impact See Volume 1. Roger Macklin on traffic congestion]. PORep0209 Object to Option 1 [development would necessitate expensive and disruptive infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr Mark Brookes improvements; harm to quality of life; harm to semi-rural character; brownfield sites should be exhausted first]. PORep0210 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic congestion; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking; See Volume 1. M Dossett loss of amenity spaces and facilities; harm to environment].

Classification: OFFICIAL 25 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0211 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt and AONB; harm to wildlife; creation of precedent for See Volume 1. These factors Mrs Anabel Curry Green Belt development; lack of capacity in transport network; proposed density inappropriate for will be determined in greater existing character of area; distance from services; impact on traffic congestions]. detail at a later stage ifthe principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0212 Object to Option 9 [harm to character of town; harm to quality of life; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. These factors Mrs L Probett knock-on harm to nearby settlements; lack of parking; lack of school, retail and healthcare will be determined in greater capacity; proposed density inappropriate for town; development need to be shared by other areas detail at a later stage if the of the county]. principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0213 Object to Options 11, 12 and 13 [traffic congestions; lack of school capacity; poor public transport; See Volume 1. Mrs Leigh McKay loss of character; overdevelopment; lack of infrastructure capacity]. PORep0214 Object to Option 1 [ harm to Green Belt; conflict with Green Belt principles; potential harm to See Volume 1. Mr Stephen Hill wildlife and farmland; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity; poor public transport options; brownfield sites available as alternative]. PORep0215 I would like to disagree with the proposed plans, as I feel the infrastructure in Chesham is not See Volume 1. Ms Jill Smyth suitable to have so many more people living here. The strain on schools, NHS and council services will be extreme, not to mention the roads and traffic congestion. PORep0216 General objection to all Preferred Options [release would conflict with founding Green Belt See Volume 1. Mrs Peggy Lancaster objectives; loss of Green Belt not outweighed by provision of housing]. PORep0217 Object to Option 9 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; lack of parks and loss of amenity space; See Volume 1. The National Mr Thomas Hope harm to setting of Old Town conservation area; lack of infrastructure capacity; development to be Planning Policy on Traveller limited to existing Wilton Park MOD site plus land between M40 and A40; development to be Sites encourages Local infrastructure-led; area not suitable for Gypsy and Traveller site]. Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process.

Classification: OFFICIAL 26 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0218 Object to Option 6 [unsustainable overdevelopment; insufficient infrastructure; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Ms Alyson Coates congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; overcrowded and inadequate public transport; harm to residential amenity; loss of character of Little Chalfont; flawed methodology for selecting site; harm to wildlife and AONB]. PORep0219 Neutral comment on Options 10,11,12,13 and 14 [infrastructure and congestion relief must be See Volume 1. There are no Mrs Christine Baxter carefully considered before development]. General objection to any Green Belt development in Preferred Options in Great Great Missenden area. Missenden. PORep0220 Object to Option 11 [harm to visual amenity; harm to rural character; loss of public recreation See Volume 1. Mr David Martin space; harm to wildlife]. PORep0221 Object to Option 6 [release would be in conflict with methodology; development is against wishes See Volume 1. Mr Ken Greatbatch of local people; harm to village character; loss of open space; lack of retail, infrastructure and transport capacity; political obligation of CDC to prevent overdevelopment; harm to environment; need for major infrastructure improvements]. PORep0222 Mrs Dorothie Object to Option 7 and Option 8 [significant level of existing permissions yet to be built out and See Volume 1. These factors Jones; impact from these yet to be felt; negative impact on schools, social services, medical facilities and will be determined in greater PORep0384 Mr Derek Light; infrastructure; Great Missenden and Gerrards Cross have more suitable and sustainable sites detail at a later stage ifthe PORep0385 Mrs Wendy available; conclusions of Green Belt assessments are inconsistent; conclusions show bias against principle and scale of Light; Chalfont St Peter; Infrastructure Capacity Study and Inner Boundary Review should be updated development has been PORep0466 Mr Robert prior to determining Green Belt options; sites perform Green Belt purposes strongly; no established through the Local Charles Wilson; exceptional circumstances; release for market housing would conflict with CSP Neighbourhood Plan process. PORep0497 Mrs Lesley Plan; NSE site should be safeguarded for future C2, healthcare and leisure needs; potential harm to Wilson; listed buildings; lack of public transport means development would be car dependant; local road PORep0586 Mr Martin network lacks capacity; harm to ancient woodland; harm to scouting activities and viability of scout Drinkwater; camp; proposed density out of character with surrounding areas; harm to amenity of existing local PORep0587 Karen residents; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC]. Drinkwater; PORep0681 Ms Aly Burn; PORep0704 Mr Paul Whistler; PORep0877 Mr Evan Bowen; PORep0909 Mrs Irene Whistler

Classification: OFFICIAL 27 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0223 Object to Option 6 [significant recent development in the village already; lack of parking; increase See Volume 1. Miss Sian Robertson in traffic congestion; lack of capacity on train network; lack of school capacity; lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to village character; conflict with Green Belt purposes; Little Chalfont has already taken its fair share of development]. PORep0224 Purely on the grounds of protecting the principal of Green Belt designated land, I am writing to See Volume 1. Mr Micheal Windett object to the proposal to develop 900 homes on land referred to as preferred Site Option 1 to the NE of Chesham PORep0225 Conditional support for Option 2 [subject to:- infrastructure enhancements; decrease in proposed Noted. See Volume 1. These Philip Verity density; provision of screening/planting to reduce visual and noise impact; access improvements; factors will be determined in provision of new healthcare facility; provision of affordable and downsize dwellings]. greater detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0226 Support Option 9 [landowner supports principle of development on their land]. Noted. PORep0227 Option 1: North East Chesham: This site is large and adjacent to the Chilterns AONB. However, due Noted – as a key stakeholder Kirsty Macpherson to the topography and existing vegetation the site is well screened and is not visible from walking the Councils will continue to Lead Advisor, Sustainable trails in the nearby AONB. As the proposal is to only develop approximately half of the site it is our work with Natural England in Development opinion that if the existing vegetation is preserved and enhanced that sufficient screening is more detailed work and follow Natural England possible and there will be only minor visual impacts to immediately adjacent neighbours. However, the avoid, mitigate, on a site this size there will be significant impacts to biodiversity if not appropriately managed. compensate approach in order Any development applications for this site should include a biodiversity ‘net gain’ calculation. to seek net gains in Option 2: Area South of Homer Green: This site is adjacent to the AONB, separated by a road. The biodiversity on particular sites land is flat and both sides of the road are lined by trees and hedges. It seems unlikely that and the plan overall. significant visual impacts would result from the development of this site if current screening Officers will seek further vegetation is maintained and enhanced. There is, however, potential for significant impacts to guidance on the ‘net gain’ biodiversity. There are two patches of Priority Habitat - Traditional Orchards, one mapped on the calculation; the Councils will Chilterns side and one on the Wycombe side. These orchards must be preserved and protected need an effective tool for this from impacts during construction and also impacts from future residents. when determining planning Option 3: Land East of Hazelmere: This site is within the AONB and surrounded by Beech Wood applications. The Councils will ancient woodland in excellent condition. There is a forest walk that travels within 10-15m of the also continue to liaise with site boundary all the way around the site. At most places along this walk there are views into Natural England in the scenes of horses grazing in open paddocks. To build on this site would significantly impact on the production of development value of this forest walk. Also building/ introducing visitor pressure this close to pristine ancient management policies relating woodland would have significant environmental impacts. The proposed 200 dwellings would, to the Natural Environment. Classification: OFFICIAL 28 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response under the “common sense” definition, be considered major development. Also, in relation to the size of the town of Hazelmere, this development (in conjunction with the Wycombe contribution) would result in an increase in town size of approximately 8%. This is large enough to be considered major development. Given the proposed size and likely significant impacts Natural England considers this ‘major development’ in the AONB and would therefore question the development of this site. Option 4: Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town: This site is within the AONB and is bisected by a chalk stream. The site is divided into two halves, one to the east and one west. The eastern site boarders the chalk stream and there is potential for significant impacts to the chalk stream during construction and, loss of water infiltration/ water contamination (garden fertiliser) once occupied. A buffer of at least 10m from the existing vegetation along the stream would be required and a greater distance would be encouraged. The density of the proposed housing is also questionable. To get 25-30 houses on this eastern site seems unreasonable unless it was a block of flats. The site is, however, very well screened from both the south and the north with no significant views (at a height of 1.6m) from the site into the AONB, and therefore possibly no views into the site from the AONB (however, this was not investigated by us). If the development was multi-storey there may be an increased risk of visual impacts. The western site is elevated and overlooks the village in the valley and the opposite hill in the AONB. There may be views of this site from within the AONB. There are views of this site from within the village. There is an area adjacent to this site that has been suggested for green space but is not in the flood mapping. It is lower and screened by neighbouring building and the water reservoir. It may be better to take lower lying areas from both these sites to avoid visual impacts of developing on the ridge line. The density of the propose development also seem unreasonable. It seems unlikely that 20-25 houses will fit on this site. An LVIA is proposed for this site to determine possible impacts and may provide advice on the dwelling density, height of buildings, and the portion of the site that can be suitably screened. Option 5: Area South of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town: This site is within the AONB. The site is divided into two halves by an area of degraded wooded area and green space, one to the northeast and one southwest. The south-western site is located on a very steep hillside over-looking the old hospital. It has some interesting ecological features with many ant hills dotting the hillside. This will need to be investigated. The site has lovely views over the old town and into the AONB hills beyond. As this site is a high point on the ridgeline, it is visible from all areas on the other side of the AONB valley and from the hospital and town. For residence directly below this site this is the only green space view they have. This view is sort by dog walkers and residence using the site as noticeable from the many foot paths crossing the site. There is a major Classification: OFFICIAL 29 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response thoroughfare footpath along the ridgeline (south-east boundary) that should be preserved. As the site is very steep it may be possible to use the area at the bottom of the site for single storey dwellings to avoid visual impacts. An LVIA is proposed for this site to determine possible impacts and may provide advice on the dwelling density, height of buildings, and the portion of the site that can be suitably screened. The north-eastern site is boarded on 3 sides by residential development. There is some chance of a small view from the opposite AONB hills but much less so than the other half of the site. The proposed density of this site seems very high. Single story dwellings on the higher ground with possible double storey dwellings around Whielden Green may avoid visual impacts from the neighbouring AONB hills. An LVIA is proposed for this site to determine possible impacts and may provide advice on the dwelling density, height of buildings, and the portion of the site that can be suitably screened. Option 6: South East of Little Chalfont: This site is bordered by the AONB on two sides, to the south and east. The southern boundary is a high point in the landscape so areas in the AONB to the south cannot see into this site. Residents along the southern boundary can see some of the site but a bank of mature trees screening the industrial area at the centre-east of the site limits views. The east boundary is Lodge Lane which is lined both sides by mature overhanging trees. This restricts views into the site from the road and landscape further east. Lodge Lane is a good example of an AONB laneways and should not be altered as part of this development. Also the Ancient Woodland on site must not be impacted as part of any development. Things to consider as part of any development should include changes to hydrology, increased nutrient (from dogs), predation of wild birds by cats, increased visitor pressure, and non-native plants infiltrating the woodland (e.g. residents dumping garden waste). It is our opinion that, if the existing vegetation is preserved and enhanced, sufficient screening is possible and there will be only minor visual impacts to immediately adjacent neighbours. However, on a site this size there will be significant impacts to biodiversity if not appropriately managed. Any development applications for this site should include a biodiversity ‘net gain’ calculation. Unfortunately not all sites were able to be visited. Some additional comments for sites not visited are below: Option 7: National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter: This site is within 800m of the AONB and may require a LVIA to show there are no visual impacts. The site is, however, a brown field site and it seems likely that impacts would be minimal. Option 9: Area East of Beaconsfield: This site is within 800m of the AONB and proposes 1500-1700 dwellings. This site will require a LVIA to show there are no visual impacts. Option 12: Area West of Iver Heath: This site is within walking distance of Black Park and its associated SSSI. Impacts of additional visitor numbers should be accounted for by providing Classification: OFFICIAL 30 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response similar quality wild green spaces within the development. Option 13: Area North of Iver Station: This site could provide a significant addition to wildlife habitat in the area and should not be developed until it can be determined scientifically not to provide habitat suitable for the proposed wildlife site designation. The site is also mapped as Priority Habitat - deciduous woodland. A suitable ecological assessment would be required for development of this site. Option 14: Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver: This site has areas mapped as Priority Habitat – open mosaic habitat. A suitable ecological assessment would be required for development of this site. Further Recommendations: Natural England would also like to highlight that removal of green space in favour of development at this scale will have serious impacts on biodiversity, connected habitat (and therefore species ability to adapt to climate change) and good quality agricultural land. We recommend that the final local plan include: Policies around connected green space within the parish. Open green space, wild green space and Green Infrastructure can all be used to create connected green space suitable for species adaptation to climate change. Annex A provides examples of Green Infrastructure; A measure of biodiversity net loss or gain should be provided for the plan. Also policies around the use of a biodiversity measure for development proposals. Suitable methods can include the Defra biodiversity offsetting metric1 and the environment bank biodiversity impact calculator; Development sites should be assessed for ‘Best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land’ (Grades 1-3a). Policies around the mapping of land proposed for development. Loss of this resource must be avoided. Please see Annex A for further information. PORep0228 Object to Option 1 [Green Belt development inappropriate; settlement coalescence; loss of open See Volume 1. Mr Toby Friedner green space; loss of character; lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion and pollution; brownfield land to be used first]. PORep0229 Object to Option 6 [access/egress concerns; harm to ancient woodland; overdevelopment; lack of See Volume 1. These factors Mr Brian Nichols capacity in road network, healthcare and schools; proposed density out of character of area]. will be determined in greater detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0230 Object to Option 3 [harm to AONB and Green Belt; loss of open space; harm to wildlife; impact on See Volume 1. Mrs Jackie Simpson traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; loss of amenity space; potential increase in crime]. PORep0231 Object to Option 11 [harm to environment; loss of recreation/amenity space; increased pollution; See Volume 1. The Council will Classification: OFFICIAL 31 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Ms Julie Cook breach of Council commitment to preserve area for community use; lack of infrastructure and carefully consider the impact service capacity]. of site-specific factors including those relating to the ways in which communities engage with the land. PORep0232 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- development being infrastructure-led; road and See Volume 1. Mrs Jane Worland parking improvements; relief road being expanded; provision of affordable and key worker housing; provision of additional school and healthcare capacity; provision of additional retail capacity; inclusion of social and entertainment facilities; retention of existing woodland]. PORep0233 Neutral comment on Options 7 and 8 [critical that full allowance is made for school capacity, road See Volume 1. Mr Alan Longshaw capacity, medical facilities, public transport]. PORep0234 Support Options 4 and 5 [provide increased housing supply whilst preserving rural nature of Noted. Mr Micheal Gahagan Amersham; support option north of Old Town High Street remaining in Green Belt]. Amersham Town FC PORep0235 National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development plan Noted. Spencer Jefferies consultations on its behalf. We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm Development Liaison that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation. Officer, National Grid PORep0236 Object to Option 6 [loss of openness; harm to wildlife; risk of urban sprawl; village has See Volume 1. Perry Wang accommodated recent development already; increased traffic congestion; impact on road safety; site access is constrained; lack of capacity at station and on trains; lack of infrastructure capacity].

PORep0237 Object to Option 6 [housing need should not justify Green Belt development; risk of setting a See Volume 1. Jon Walden precedent; Green Belt release will not address the root cause of housing need; Little Chalfont PORep0268 already taken a lot of recent housing; conflict with NPPF; insufficient infrastructure; lack of school Maryanne Walden places; lack of public transport; lack of parking; harm to setting of AONB]. PORep0238 Object to Option 15 [should be retained in Green Belt to safeguard site for future parking need See Volume 1. Mr Robert Hanbury once Crossrail is operational]. PORep0239 Object to Options 4 and 5 [increase to traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. See Volume 1. Miss Claire Kenny PORep0240 Object to Option 1 [brownfield opportunities to be fully identified first; lack of capacity in road See Volume 1. Mr David Bird network, sewerage network and schools; impact on air pollution; lack of sustainable options]. PORep0241 Object to Options 7 and 8 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; need for Green Belt strengthened See Volume 1. Miss Shelagh Morrison by housing need not weakened; proposals for Chalfont St Peter out of proportion; potential harm

Classification: OFFICIAL 32 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response to Colne Valley area; loss of amenity space; loss of recreation space; harm to community scouting facilities; harm to wildlife; harm to health; lack of infrastructure capacity; constrained site access; increase in traffic; lack of school and healthcare capacity; cumulative impact from existing permissions at Newlands Park and Holy Cross]. PORep0242 Object to Option 1 [conflict with purposes of the Green Belt; risk of setting a precedent; proposed See Volume 1. Mr Stewart Pike development out of proportion with existing town; loss of natural environment and farmland; increased traffic congestion; site access is constrained; increase in air pollution; lack of parking; lack of capacity on train services; loss of identity for Ashley Green and Lye Green; development should be spread over a larger number of smaller sites; brownfield land to be exhausted before Green Belt developed]. PORep0243 Object to Option 9 [lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school, See Volume 1. Mrs Alison Clifford-King healthcare, water and sewerage capacity; constraints on infrastructure expansion; lack of capacity on rail services]. PORep0244 Object to Option 6 [lack of facilities in village; no bypass; lack of parking; lack of school and See Volume 1. Graham A Pruce healthcare capacity; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; increased pollution; harm to wildlife; loss of village character; PORep0245 Object to Option 6 [harm to village community; harm to environment; lack of existing school and See Volume 1. Pauline Pruce healthcare capacity; increase in traffic congestion; impact on road safety; lack of parking; Little Chalfont already taken its fair share of recent development; harm to quality of life]. PORep0246 General comments [acknowledge the challenge of balancing safe and environmentally friendly Noted. See Volume 1. The Mrs Cathy Davidoff communities with need to meet housing need; need for key-worker housing acknowledged; new Council will seek to encourage development should incorporate SuDS; promoting benefits of development will help residents new development to form a positive view; Green Belt developments could provide an opportunity to employ a range of demonstrate appropriate environmentally friendly techniques and devices]. sustainability credentials. PORep0247 Object to Option 6 [performs Green Belt purposes strongly; release would set a precedent for See Volume 1. R Purton Green Belt development; Green Belt assessment came to incorrect conclusion; loss of open countryside; harm to wildlife; harm to ancient woodland; harm to setting of AONB; lots of recent development already in Little Chalfont; lack of capacity in road network; harm to village character; site access is constrained; best option to meet housing need would be a new settlement]. PORep0248 Object to Option 1 [scale of proposed development too great; insufficient consideration of See Volume 1. Gill Soulsby infrastructure; town centre/Asheridge Road development provides a better development option; harm to Green Belt]. PORep0249 Conditional support for Option 6 [subject to:- infrastructure improvements; provision of new Noted. See Volume 1. Mrs Susanne Singh shops, healthcare and school facilities].

Classification: OFFICIAL 33 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0250 I am one of the residents on Ellis Avenue, Chalfont Heights who will be negatively affected if the See Volume 1. Mr Michael Tadros plans go ahead as my property backs up onto the meadow which made me buy this property in the first place, 30 years ago. I very much hope the meadow remains as a meadow. PORep0251 Bakers Wood plot owners wish to consider to remove the Green Belt designation in the Bakers See Volume 1. Mr Balvantrai Shah Wood area. It is a good piece of land connected with road/motorways international Heathrow Airport. Central Government wants to build more houses within London and M25 boundary.

PORep0252 Beaconsfield Development. I would like to draw your attention to the attached article "Britain's Noted. Mr Tony Sperring Housing Crisis: Are Garden Cities the Answer?" - Patrick Barkham, October 2014, The Guardian. [Extract from article attached] PORep0253 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- development being scaled down; protection of the Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Peter Ryde gap between Lye Green and Chesham to preserve Lye Green individuality; traffic mitigation and provision of improved bus routes and pedestrian/cycle routes; provision of more town centre parking; improved train services; provision of off-site specialist elderly accommodation closer to town centre services]. PORep0254 Mrs Jane Scott; I am very pleased that none of the Green Belt sites within Chalfont St Giles have been selected as This site is not included in the PORep0255 Mrs Elizabeth preferred options for Local Plan development, and would like to ensure that this remains the case Councils’ Preferred Options as Bingham; going forward, in order to protect the rural character of the village. I would also like to ensure that the Green Belt Part 1 PORep0256 Mrs Lynda both Upper and Lower Stone Meadow within Chalfont St Giles (Ordinance Survey Map reference Assessment deemed it should Weiss; SU9993NW. Land Registry Title Number BM294098) are protected from any future development not be tested further. PORep0257 Mr Neil plans as an area of Green Belt within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Any future McCarthy; development within Chalfont St Giles should be in keeping with the character of the village and PORep0259 Mrs Elaine should avoid large scale developments. Moore; PORep0260 Mr Gary Jackson; PORep0265 Anon; PORep0267 Mr Nick Gleeson; PORep0270 Mr James Blatchford; PORep0273 Mrs Nicola Wood; PORep0274 Mrs Erica Rowe; Classification: OFFICIAL 34 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0275 Mr Reginald Denby; PORep0307 Mrs Gemma Bernstein; PORep0308 Mr David Slater; PORep0313 Mr Neil Bernstein; PORep0320 Mrs Melissa Longhurst; PORep0321 Mrs Sylvia Morrison-Moore; PORep0322 Mrs Susan Huffelmann; PORep0323 Mrs Jane Davison; PORep0324 Mrs Marian Pell; PORep0343 Ms Helen Whitlum; PORep0360 Ms Susan Hitchcock; PORep0362; Mrs Mary Phillips PORep0366 Mr Peter Scognamillo; PORep0367 Ms Debbie Morris; PORep0368 Mr Graham Ellis; PORep0439 Mr Laurence Strange; PORep0451 Mr Iain Janes; PORep0553 Mr Kirk Jones; PORep0581 Mrs Cindy Classification: OFFICIAL 35 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Jones; PORep0715 Mrs Melanie McDonnell; PORep0716 Mr Rafael McDonnell; PORep0721 Mr Antony Lord; PORep0755 Mr Jack Sawyer; PORep0761 Miss Paula Hutty; PORep0763 Anon; PORep0764 Anon; PORep0774 Mr Paul Gibson; PORep0777 Mrs Susan O'Halloran; PORep0903 Ms Sally Preston; PORep0915 Mr Paul Killingback PORep0258 Object to Option 1 [additional traffic around Brushwood School; pressure on public/social services; See Volume 1. Mrs Fiona Downing lack of school and healthcare capacity; insufficient public transport; loss of amenity and recreation space; harm to wildlife; loss of character]. PORep0261 Object to Option 6 [harm to community; conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to village See Volume 1. Mr John Farndon infrastructure; Little Chalfont already taken fair share of recent development; site should be retained for community use]. PORep0262 Object to Option 11 [site perfoms Green Belt functions; impact from Pinewood expansion; harm to See Volume 1. Mr Warren Brazier wildlife; loss of amenity space; loss of community space]. PORep0263 Object to Option 1 [other sites enjoy better public transport; development would increase traffic; See Volume 1. Mr Steven Fayers violation of Green Belt purposes; housing should be concentrated on Chiltern Pools site after redevelopment; against wishes of residents expressed in Reg 18 consultation; future demand uncertain in wake of Brexit].

Classification: OFFICIAL 36 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0264 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl; brownfield land more appropriate than Green Belt; See Volume 1. Mrs Alice Adderley Chesham allocated disproportionate level of housing; harm to wildlife; harm to open space; distance from site to town centre and services; increase in pollution; lack of infrastructure; increased traffic and pollution; lack of capacity in sewage network, schools and healthcare; increased flood risk; lack of capacity in train network and car parking]. PORep0269 Object to Option 7 [harm to rural character; loss of recreation space; local roads already strained; See Volume 1. Miss Genna Hammond cumulative impact of HS2 construction traffic; affordable housing hard to deliver; decision to PORep0271 release appears to have already been made; agree with all points raised by CSP Parish Council]. Mr Kyle Dempsey PORep0272 Object to Option 11 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to biodiversity and wildlife; loss of See Volume 1. The Councils Amanda Bausor amenity and recreation space; insufficient infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; lack of will seek to take account of the parking; cumulative impact of Pinewood expansion and forthcoming infrastructure projects in Iver; implications of planned major release would contradict SBDC’s opposition to Pinewood expansion; housing could be delivered infrastructure projects in from other sites]. relation to the timing of some development proposals. PORep0276 The current proposed options, in the main, are infill sites. If these sites are released for See Volume 1. Mr Frank Garnham development it will mean the cherished green spaces interspersed in our towns and villages will be lost forever. What is the alternative? I propose releasing larger plots of land, just outside established conurbations with established infrastructures that are essentially low-grade arable or commercial areas. I propose that the land at Stampwell Farm, bordering the London Road, A40, opposite the new Crown Plaza Hotel be considered. The post code being HP9 2XD, there are three plots, one plot national grid reference is 497570 189500. The land comprises approximately 100 acres of low-grade arable land with around 25 acres of ancient woodland. An entrance to the site could easily be established either to the east or west of the current farm entrance. PORep0277 Conditional Support for Option 9 [subject to:- development to be cohesively planned and not Noted. See Volume 1. Clare Bull piecemeal; development to be infrastructure-led; provision of new school; provision of additional parking; provision of additional leisure and recreation facilities; provision of key worker housing; development to be informed by further consultation with the community]. PORep0278 Object to Option 10 [available office space in Uxbridge; Uxbridge a more sustainable location; See Volume 1. The Councils Tina Williamson impact on traffic congestion on A40]. must seek to meet their development needs within the Plan Area as far as is reasonably practicable.

Classification: OFFICIAL 37 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0279 East of Flamstead Farm, Ashley Green - The provision of a small housing development, See Volume 1. Mr Peter Domb commensurate to the size of the settlement, would help to address the need that exists for housing in Ashley Green. It would enable the village to grow in a controlled and sustainable manner. The provision of a small development of new homes would address the Government’s policy in the National Planning Policy Framework to increase the supply of housing and widen opportunities for home ownership. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it absolutely clear that we must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. There are no issues with ownership or land assembly and the site could come forward for development immediately. The Council has accepted there is a need for development in the Green Belt to provide the houses that are needed. We consider there are clear planning benefits to the development of this site. We respectfully suggest to the Council that the land be allocated for housing in emerging planning policy documents. PORep0280 Object to Option 9 [Relief road alone will not mitigate traffic increase from proposed See Volume 1. Mr Edward Slater development; lack of parking facilities; loss of town character; increased traffic congestion on Ledborough Lane; lack of healthcare and school capacity]. PORep0281 Object to Option 1 [sets a precedent for Green Belt development; represents urban sprawl; harm See Volume 1. Ms Cerys Biancardi to environment; lack of infrastructure capacity; increased traffic congestion; lack of capacity on train network; lack of healthcare and school capacity]. PORep0282 As I’m sure you are aware officers from the City of London have been working closely with Noted – the Councils are Dr Helen Read Planning Policy Officers at South Bucks District Council reading the impact of the Local Plan on continuing to liaise with the Conservation Officer Burnham Beeches, the status of which, as a site of European Importance brings various obligations. City of London to plan City of London Corporation The primary interest of the City of London with regard to the Local Plan is to ensure that the positively for the conservation habitats and species for which the Beeches is designated are protected from harm. However, of Burnham Beeches and will Burnham Beeches is also a public open space with free right of access on foot and there is welcome further more in depth potentially a conflict with these two contrasting needs from the site. discussion through the Local Any increase in housing in the local area will increase the likelihood of regular walkers and dog Plan process. walkers. As managers of Burnham Beeches the city of London has sought to minimise the impact of visitors on the fabric of the site and the features of Nature Conservation interest. It is highly likely that, unless development is restricted close to Burnham Beeches, some of this unmet need will be fulfilled by windfall nearby. We call upon SBDC to ensure that development outside the preferred areas and within 5km of Burnham Beeches to be restricted in some way or for some alternative mitigation to be provided so that this does not result in additional visitors to Burnham Beeches. In the same way we also call upon SBDC to consider some additional financial Classification: OFFICIAL 38 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response contributions to the management of the infrastructure at Burnham Beeches that the additional visits from the development of option 9 at Beaconsfield (or any others within 5km of the Beeches) will generate despite having green space integral in the development. This is the case for example with the Thames Basin Heaths area where there are additional measures such as increased wardening provided in addition to new accessible green spaces. PORep0283 Object to Option 1 [lack of capacity in road network; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare, public See Volume 1. Mrs Jacqueline Abbott transport and sewerage infrastructure; conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to environment]. PORep0284 Object to Option 1 [insufficient infrastructure; increased traffic congestion; lack of facilities and See Volume 1. Mr Keith Bond amenities; distance from site to schools, shops and healthcare; waste water network potentially insufficient]. PORep0285 Object to Options 7 and 8 [infrastructure not given sufficient consideration; traffic already bad, See Volume 1. Angela Brownrigg especially Lower Road; lack of parking capacity; lack of healthcare capacity; lack of headroom in wastewater and sewage facilities; over abstraction of Misbourne River; loss of amenity space; loss of open green space; lack of infrastructure]. PORep0286 Object to Option 1 [overdevelopment and overpopulation within AONB; increase in pollution; See Volume 1. Mr Satbir Dhillon impact on traffic congestion on A416 and Lye Green Road; harm to road safety; cumulative impact of development in Dacorum; insufficient public transport; impact from HS2; impact on flood risk; lack of parking; poor communication by the Council; development should be better distributed across the district; conflict with Green Belt purposes; strain on healthcare and services]. PORep0287 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure; roads already under maintained; lack of capacity in See Volume 1. Mr Jonathon Croot sewerage infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; brownfield sites should be exhausted before Green Belt developed; scope exists to use existing buildings more efficiently]. PORep0288 Object to Option 1 [harm to town character and identity; risk of urban sprawl; harm to countryside; See Volume 1. Miss Nicola Bland development must balance residential and employment needs; lack of infrastructure; distance to town centre and services; insufficient public transport; potential flood risk; location inappropriate for elderly accommodation; lack of capacity in sewerage network; brownfield land should be developed before Green Belt; lack of town centre parking; lack of information from the Council on infrastructure requirements; loss of wildlife; loss of openness; Green Belt should be protected]. PORep0289 Object to Option 1 [scale of development too great; brownfield land available in town centre; See Volume 1. Mrs Juliette Cummins impact on traffic congestion; lack of capacity on train services; risk of setting a precedent for Green Belt development; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0290 Object to Option 11 [site performs Green Belt purposes; Green Belt at Option 11 strengthened by See Volume 1. Mrs Michelle Lindgren recent Pinewood development; loss of amenity and recreation space; loss of community asset].

Classification: OFFICIAL 39 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0291 Object to Option 6 [loss of amenity space; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Lawrence development; impact on traffic congestion; local road network inadequate; conflict with Green Belt Marigold purposes; harm to wildlife; harm to ancient woodland; PORep0292 Object to Option 9 [Green Belt should be preserved for future generations; development should See Volume 1. Mr Giles Greenwood be better distributed over district; lack of school and healthcare capacity; scale of proposed development too large compared to size of existing town]. PORep0293 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- adoption of CIL; brownfield land used as much as Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Alan Wallwork possible; improvements to transport infrastructure; construction of a bypass; improved public transport; double-tracking of Chesham branch line; upgrades to Chesham sewage treatment works; provision of new schools; development to be infrastructure-led]. PORep0294 Mrs Elizabeth Object to Option 7 [CDC appears to have already made up its mind to remove the Epilepsy Society See Volume 1. As part of this Boswell; site from the Green Belt and is skewing its evidence to try to justify it; CDC has not completed its consultation the Councils PORep0295 Mr Paul “Inner Green Belt Boundary Review”; The site strongly fulfils the five purposes of the Green Belt; tested preferred options based Hammond; There are more suitable areas for housing development elsewhere in Chiltern District; There are no on the most up to date PORep0296 Mr Elias ‘exceptional circumstances’; The CSP Neighbourhood Plan clearly earmarks this site for C2 use; The evidence available; therefore Norman; site should remain in the Green Belt and be retained for C2 community care or sheltered the options identified do not PORep0297 Mrs Rhona accommodation for the elderly or disabled. This could potentially release residents’ existing homes represent proposal sites. The Dempsey; for others who wish to live in the area; The site is already undergoing sensitive redevelopment in scope of the Inner Green PORep0298 Mr Aaron accordance with Green Belt principles]. Boundary Review is to amend Dempsey; minor anomalies within the PORep0299 Mr Conor existing Green Belt; this would Hammond; not include the strategic PORep0300 Mr Dylan release of sites from the Green Hammond; Belt which is being covered by PORep0301 Miss Megan the Green Belt Assessment Norman; Parts 1 and 2. PORep0302 Miss Kara Evans; PORep0303 Miss Diana Dunlop; PORep0304 Mrs Sara Kent; PORep0305 Mr Neil Thompson; PORep0306 Mrs Maja Lefevre; Classification: OFFICIAL 40 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0309 Support Options 13 and 14 [good road access; good access to Iver station; minimal impact on Noted. Mrs Nicole McCaig existing residents]. General comments – Ridgeway Trading Estate could be redeveloped for homes removing need for relief road; David Wilson Homes proposal not supported. PORep0310 Object to Option 11 [loss of space for leisure activities; loss of community amenity]. See Volume 1. Mrs Anita Wild PORep0311 Object to Option 6 [insufficient public sevices; insufficient infrastructure; poor town planning; harm Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Reynolds to quality of life; overedevelopment]. Support a reduction in scale to 300 dwellings. PORep0312 Neutral comment [Support the decision not to take any sites in Chalfont St Giles forward as a Noted. See Volume 1. Miss Sonia Greer-Perry Preferred Option]. Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes; overdevelopment; harm to community; harm to setting of AONB; lack of information on infrastructure; site access is constrained; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school capacity; lack of parking; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife]. PORep0314 Duplicate of PORep0293 N/A Mr Alan Wallwork PORep0315 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont taken its fair share of recent development; infrastructure already See Volume 1. Mrs Naomi Jones at capacity; impact on traffic and congestion; lack of parking; affordable and key worker housing will be unachievable; harm to setting of AONB; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife; pressure on train services]. PORep0316 M J Dines; Object to Option 11 [land performs Green Belt purposes strongly]. See Volume 1. PORep0325 W Dines PORep0317 Object to Option 1 [lack of station parking; distance from site to town centre and services; recent See Volume 1. Mr David Hardy development has shown brownfield land can be utilised successfully and should continue to do so; Green Belt makes the area attractive]. PORep0318 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont becoming overcrowded; strain on local roads, schools, transport See Volume 1. Mr Bhavin Shah and amenities; harm to village character; town centre spaces to be better utilised instead of Green Belt development]. PORep0319 Neutral comment [Support the decision not to take any sites in Chalfont St Giles forward as a Noted. Mr Lino Gallina Preferred Option]. PORep0326 Object to Option 1 [loss of identity of the area; harm to the Green Belt; creation of urban sprawl; See Volume 1. Mr George Andrew impact on traffic congestion; increased pollution; lack of capacity in critical infrastructure; lack of healthcare and school capacity; distance from site to town centre and services; lack of town centre parking; brownfield sites to be developed before considering Green Belt; risk of setting precedent for Green Belt development].

Classification: OFFICIAL 41 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0327 Object to Option 1 [increase in traffic congestion; insufficient transport infrastructure; lack of town See Volume 1. Mr Tim Watts centre and station parking; lack of capacity on the Metropolitan Line; proposal appears to neglect wider infrastructure impacts of development; affected area would be wider than just Chesham].

PORep0328 Object to Options 7 and 8 [existing permissions will already increase population significantly; See Volume 1. Ms Jean Meakin insufficient planning for transport and infrastructure needs; bias against Chalfont St Peter in how development is distributed across district; need for open space; Green Belt purposes are performed strongly; no exceptional circumstances; inconsistency in between Green Belt assessment outcomes; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0329 Old Mill Road and Denham roundabout and A40 are clogged up with traffic every day. Already See Volume 1. Usha Sabhaural there have been several fatal accidents around here. More construction will make matters far worse. How will office workers access the new development? PORep0330 Object to Option 11 [development is inappropriate for the area; Pinewood expansion already an See Volume 1. Mrs Maureen Bowers eyesore; harm to wildlife; loss of community amenity space]. PORep0331 Object to Options 7 and 8 [harm to Green Belt and Colne Valley Regional Park; harm to Paccar See Volume 1. The absolute Mr Kennedy Morrison scout camp; loss of public amenity space and footpaths; the Winkers site in isolation could be requirement for affordable redeveloped to provide some affordable housing; lack of infrastructure capacity; existing housing will be subject to permissions in the village have not been match by infrastructure improvements; lack of school and overall development viability healthcare capacity; detailed plan for at least 40% affordable would be essential to secure when balanced with other community support]. obligations such as infrastructure improvements. PORep0332 An abuse of the Green Belt status and denying local people access to open fields for ramblers and See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Belton dog walkers and a recognised public footpath through Gerrards Gross Golf Club and beyond. Car parking in the village is already at a premium and an additional 400 houses will only exacerbate the problem. PORep0333 Object to Option 1 [harm to natural environment; further abstraction would harm aquifers and See Volume 1. Mrs E Lindrop River Chess; harm to wildlife; brownfield land to be developed before Green Belt especially targeted in the town centre to aid regeneration]. PORep0334 Object to Option 7 [enough houses in the pipeline already; proposal too close to the scout camp]. See Volume 1. Mrs Diana Longshaw Object to Option 8 [harm to Green Belt; would close gap between settlements; harm to existing residents; development should be determined at town/parish scale rather than district]. PORep0335 Object to Option 1 [proposals are too big; harm to local infrastructure and services; cumulative See Volume 1. Mr Robert Marini harm from HS2; harm to attractive character of the area].

Classification: OFFICIAL 42 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0336 Object to Option 6 [Conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to wildlife; harm to ancient woodland; See Volume 1. Mr Martin Mace lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of retail options; few local jobs; insufficient public transport; lack of capacity in local road network; harm to setting of AONB; Little Chalfont has already seen significant recent development; proposals are unpopular with existing residents]. PORep0337 Object to Option 9 [impact on traffic and road infrastructure; proposed relief road may just See Volume 1. Mr David Merriman displace traffic problems to different part of the local road network; secondary relief road provide alternative route to M40 may be necessary]. PORep0338 Object to Option 8 [harm to character of Chalfont Heights ERASC; loss of amenity space; proposed See Volume 1. These factors Mrs Deborah Elliott density out of character for Chalfont St Peter; lack of public transport; impact on traffic levels]. will be determined in greater detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0339 Object to Option 8 [impact from existing permissions yet to be felt; insufficient infrastructure in See Volume 1. Mr James Dickinson village; village roads would not cope; lack of school and healthcare capacity; Chalfont St Peter taking more development than other settlements; scale of proposed development out of character for village; harm to scout camp; site is not served by public transport; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; loss of amenity space]. PORep0340 Object to Options 7 and 8 [loss of amenity and recreation space; harm to village character; loss of See Volume 1. These factors Mr Antony Elliott open green space; harm to scout camp; proposed density inappropriate; strain on transport, will be determined in greater parking, sewage, schools and doctors]. detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0341 In respect of the red land proposed for release from the Green Belt, Network Rail is pleased to see Noted. Mr Bryn Jones the references made to Western Rail Link to Heathrow (WRLtH), which is a Nationally Significant Senior Town Planner Infrastructure Project, endorsed by Government in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan Network Rail 2016-21, the High Level Output Specification 2012, and the Aviation Policy Framework 2013. The project is currently programmed to start on site in 2019, subject to the approval of a Development Consent Order. Network Rail welcomes any support the Council can provide in respect of railway development - especially WRLtH - via their evidence base. PORep0342 Option D: Develop the surgery to include more advanced facilities. Noted.

Classification: OFFICIAL 43 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Dr Malcolm Kerr PORep0344 Object to Option 7 [flawed rationale for Green Belt release; loss of valuable amenity space; harm to See Volume 1. Mrs S McC village character; Chalfont St Peter has already supported significant recent development at Holy Cross; strain on infrastructure from existing permissions not yet clear; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0345 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposal too great; impact on traffic congestion; site access See Volume 1. Mr David Culpan constrained by road size and railway bridge; lack of healthcare capacity; lack of parking; lack of capacity on train network; insufficient infrastructure; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; local demand unproven; Green Belt assessment produced flawed evidence; conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to AONB setting; brownfield land to be used first]. PORep0346 Object to Option 6 [risk of setting precedent for Green Belt development; conflict with Green Belt See Volume 1. Alison Hamilton purposes; harm to village character; lack of capacity in infrastructure and services]. PORep0347 Object to Option 6 [housing need no justification for Green Belt release; harm to Green Belt; harm See Volume 1. Mr Ian Hamilton to village character; lack of infrastructure capacity; insufficient roads, rail and parking facilities; lack of school capacity]. PORep0348 Object to Option 7 [CDC appears to have already made up its mind to remove the Epilepsy Society See Volume 1. As part of this Miss Stephanie Tims site from the Green Belt and is skewing its evidence to try to justify it; CDC has not completed its consultation the Councils PORep0349 “Inner Green Belt Boundary Review” to judge if existing buildings should remain ‘washed over’ by tested preferred options based Mrs Zelie Tims Green Belt. The Core Strategy Inspector said that current policies would “ensure that the existing on the most up to date PORep0350 degree of openness is retained”; The site strongly fulfils the five purposes of the Green Belt and evidence available; therefore Mr Saul Dempsey scores highly in any unbiased Green Belt Assessment; there are more suitable areas for housing the options identified do not PORep0351 development elsewhere in Chiltern District, particularly in those areas which score lower on CDC’s represent proposal sites. The Mr Frank Newman Green Belt Assessment; There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ or other valid reasons to remove scope of the Inner Green PORep0352 any of the Epilepsy Site from the Green Belt; The CSP Neighbourhood Plan clearly earmarks this Boundary Review is to amend Miss Storme Dempsey site for C2 use. CDC must respect the emerging Neighbourhood Plan; The site should remain in minor anomalies within the the Green Belt and be retained for C2 community care or sheltered accommodation for the elderly existing Green Belt; this would or disabled. This could potentially release residents’ existing homes for others who wish to live in not include the strategic the area; The site is already undergoing sensitive redevelopment in accordance with Green Belt release of sites from the Green principles. The two C2 care home developments are complimentary to the open aspect and work Belt which is being covered by well. The site is ideal for further expansion of this type of property within the Green Belt and the Green Belt Assessment existing built footprint]. Parts 1 and 2. PORep0353 Conditional support for Option 7 [subject to:- future development following existing pattern of Noted. See Volume 1. Ms Elaine Mason limited C2 development; protection of gap between Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont St Giles; retention of fields for amenity space; investment in infrastructure improvements]. Object to Option

Classification: OFFICIAL 44 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response 8 [unsustainable impact on traffic and transport conditions; harm to scouting activities; harm to amenity space; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; lack of public transport options; cumulative impact from HS2 development; decrease in road safety]. PORep0354 Mr Clive Object to Option 6 [harm to quality of life; harm to the Green Belt; lack of sufficient infrastructure; See Volume 1. Everest; development could not be sustainable; harm to biodiversity; lack of capacity on transport network, PORep0355 Mrs Ann local roads and trains; lack of school capacity; lack of utilities capacity; harm to AONB; loss of Everest; PORep0493 Mrs biodiversity; brownfield land should be developed before Green Belt]. Kathryn Pierce; PORep0789 Mr Michael Parker PORep0356 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of the Green Belt; housing need is not an exceptional See Volume 1. Mrs Ann Alderson circumstance; loss of open space; flawed assessment process; overdevelopment and harm to character; Little Chalfont has taken higher proportion of recent development than nearby settlements; lack of capacity on local road network; lack of station parking; schools are oversubscribed already; harm to biodiversity; loss of ancient woodland; harm to setting of AONB]. PORep0357 Upper & Lower Stone Meadow, Chalfont St Giles. I understand the meadows were bought with Neither of these sites are Mr Martin Stevens public funds by CDC in 2002 & should be preserved as they are part of the fabric of the historic included within the Councils' village. They sit on a flood plain & are not suitable for development. Preferred Options. PORep0358 Object to Option 1 [proposal constitutes urban sprawl and conflicts with Green Belt purposes; lack See Volume 1. The principle of Valerie Quinnell of clarity in consultation about infrastructure requirements; lack of infrastructure capacity in releasing the land from Green Chesham; serious implications for traffic congestion; increased traffic would present risk to school Belt must be established children; site is inappropriate for gypsy and traveller accommodation for reasons both of policy before specific plans for and practicality]. development can be prepared and costed. The National Planning Policy on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0359 Object to Option 11 [local authorities should enhance Green Belt spaces not develop them; focus See Volume 1. Mr Mike Dines should be on use of Option 11 as public amenity space; release from Green Belt would conflict

Classification: OFFICIAL 45 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response with Green Belt purposes].

PORep0361 Object to Option 7 [lack of infrastructure capacity; impact from HS2; loss of local character; other Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Ian Dallow areas more suitable; Green Belt protection effective]. Support Option 8 [best of the Preferred Options]. PORep0363 Support Options 4 and 5 [development would help tackle housing need; limited harm to Green Noted. Mr Nick Smith Belt and AONB as long as footpath through the sites is clearly retained]. PORep0364 Object to Option 6 [conflict with NPPF; conflict with Green Belt purposes; brownfield land to be See Volume 1. Mr Charlie Griffiths used before Green Belt; no exceptional circumstances; flawed assessment process and conclusions; The National Planning Policy harm to AONB setting; conflict with current local plan policies GB1, GB2; GB30 and TR2; proposed on Traveller Sites encourages densities too great; loss of outdoor recreation space; harm to rural setting; lack of capacity in Local Authorities to strategic and local road and rail networks; increase in traffic congestion; lack of sufficient retail and accommodate Gypsy, Traveller parking capacity; lack of school places; development focus should be on provision of specialist and Travelling Showpeople elderly accommodation to free up existing housing stock; site unsuitable for gypsy and traveller accommodation in schemes for accommodation; lack of healthcare capacity; lack of public transport; strain on emergency 'conventional' housing. This is services]. an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0365 Object to Option 6 [impact on existing village facilities; lack of capacity in road network; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Dave Bevan capacity on train services; lack of parking; harm to local retailers; lack of healthcare and school capacity; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; harm to heritage of the area; harm to setting of the AONB; flawed Green Belt assessment process and results; conflict with Green Belt purposes]. PORep0369 Object to all Preferred Options [lack of information on infrastructure]. Object specifically to Option See Volume 1. The principle of Mr John Wheatley 6 [harm to character; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; conflict with Green Belt releasing the land from Green purposes; loss of community breathing space]. Belt must be established before specific plans for development can be prepared and costed. PORep0370 Object to Option 6 [development will worsen existing busy traffic on A404; development would See Volume 1. Mr Jeffrey Brookes necessitate A404 bypass and underpass widening beneath the railway; existing amenities overstretched; lack of school and healthcare facilities; inadequate retail options; lack of parking].

PORep0371 Object to Options 7 and 8 [conflict with NPPF; conflict with Green Belt purposes; no benefit to See Volume 1. Made Mrs Deborah Walker existing residents; impacts from outstanding permissions in Chalfont St Peter are yet to be Neighbourhood Plans form Classification: OFFICIAL 46 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response understood; CSP taken more development than surrounding settlements such as Gerrards Cross; part of the Development Plan unproven exceptional circumstances; harm to listed buildings; conflict with CSP Neighbourhood much like Local Plans; Plan; lack of public transport; lack of capacity in local road network; harm to community amenity Neighbourhood Plans should space; impact on scout camp; lack of school places]. be in conformity with the higher-order plan in place (Core Strategy and Local Plan) with the most recently document having the greater weight in decision making. When reviewing the Local Plan the Councils do not need to be in conformity with existing Neighbourhood Plans, but should and will consider them. PORep0372 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes in NPPF; conflict with AONB legislation and See Volume 1. Dr Lotte Grant Chilterns AONB Management Plan; potential loss of visitors and harm to tourism; harm to setting PORep0490 of AONB; loss of biodiversity; loss of ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; lack of infrastructure Mr Jonathon Grant capacity; lack of school places, healthcare and parking facilities; shortage of train services; increased traffic congestion on A404; constrained road network around site; Little Chalfont taken more recent development than neighbouring settlements]. PORep0373 Area West of Denham Green (Ref number 1.16). As a consortia, we would like the collective (or See Volume 1. Miss Victoria Keogh individual plots) to be considered as development sites in line with the local plan for South Bucks. We appreciate that the site had previously been considered and rejected due to the high density of trees. This is because some of the land being previously considered encompassed Newland Woods where many of the trees are protected with tree preservation orders.

PORep0374 Area West of Iver Heath (South East of Five Points Roundabout) (Ref number 1.21) - The above See Volume 1. Mr Satinder Dhami analysis demonstrates unequivocally that site reference number 1.20 has: a) An NPPF defensible boundary in which to form a parcel or sub area; b) Scores 0 against all of the Green Belt purposes and so cannot be said to make any contribution to the Green Belt whatsoever; and c) Meets the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ test in terms of its potential to be de-designated from the Green Belt. PORep0375 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic; lack of school places; lack of foresight demonstrated when See Volume 1. Miss L Wilson college on Nashleigh Hill replaced by housing.

Classification: OFFICIAL 47 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0376 Object to Option 6 [loss of recreation facility; harm to countryside; loss of village character; risk of See Volume 1. Mr Steve Melhuish setting a precedent for Green Belt development; additional strain on infrastructure; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of capacity in local road network; harm to environment; lack of parking; brownfield land and neighbouring areas to be used before Green Belt; strain on utilities and water services]. PORep0377 Object to Option 1 [increased traffic congestion and risk of car accidents; increased air pollution; See Volume 1. Mr Christopher Head insufficient infrastructure; brownfield sites should be exhausted before development of Green Belt; harm to AONB; harm to environment]. PORep0378 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic congestion; local road network would be overwhelmed; air See Volume 1. Mrs Sam Clarke pollution would increase; lack of school places; lack of healthcare capacity; pressure on sewers and water system; lack of emergency services coverage]. PORep0379 Object to Option 07 [lack of provision of affordable aged accommodation; lack of public transport; See Volume 1. Mrs Wendy Nowell loss of amenity space and public footpath; harm to wildlife; loss of openness]. Option Option 8 [lack of public transport; lack of exceptional circumstances]. PORep0380 Object to Options 11, 12, 13 and 14 [Green Belt land in Iver should be protected; risk of setting See Volume 1. Mr Paul Graham precedent for future Green Belt development; brownfield development in London and elsewhere Chairman best way to tackle housing crisis; existing permissions nationally should be built out before Iver & District Countryside releasing Green Belt; Iver part of crucial gap between London and Slough; harm to Colne Valley Association Park; SBDC should lobby central government to protect Green Belt]. PORep0381 Neutral comment [Pleased that none of the Green Belt sites within Chalfont St Giles have been Noted. Mr Michael Baldwin selected as preferred options and keen to ensure this remains the case]. PORep0382 Object to Option 9 [Local schools are oversubscribed; Road and rail networks overloaded; medical See Volume 1. Mrs Amanda Godsell-Tagg facilities already overstretched; leisure facilities are lacking]. PORep0383 Object to Option 1 [no exceptional circumstances; former college site has already provided See Volume 1. Mrs Janice Rooney housing in the Lye Green area; strain on drainage; strain on schools and doctors; increase in traffic and pollution]. PORep0386 Object to Option 6 [existing infrastructure is insufficient; lack of infrastructure detail in consultation See Volume 1. Mr Charles Repton literature; existing pressure on education, healthcare, traffic and parking]. PORep0387 Object to Option 1 [local infrastructure could not support scale of proposed development; Green See Volume 1. Miss Victoria Smythe Belt should be protected for future generations; pressure on transport, healthcare and education provision]. PORep0388 Object to Option 1 [harm to countryside and lifestyle; brownfield options to be explored further See Volume 1. Mrs Gemma Goodhead before developing Green Belt; impact on traffic and pollution; pressure on schools; lack of capacity on trains; lack of parking; gypsy and traveller sites inappropriate].

Classification: OFFICIAL 48 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0389 At this stage, I can only provide general guidance on the provision of electricity infrastructure and Noted – the Councils will Mr Chris Gaskell the treatment of any existing infrastructure in relation to future development. Connections for new continue to liaise with all Network Planning Engineer developments from existing infrastructure can be provided subject to cost and time-scale. Where infrastructure providers to Scottish and Southern existing infrastructure is inadequate to support the increased demands from the new establish whether new Electricity Networks development, the costs of any necessary upstream reinforcement required would normally be development planned for can apportioned between developer and DNO (Distribution Network Operator) in accordance with the be accommodated and where current Statement of Charging Methodology agreed with the industry regulator (OFGEM). necessary identify where investment is needed. PORep0390 Object to Option 6 [housing need does not justify Green Belt release; scale of urbanisation would See Volume 1. Mr Colin Grimsey change character of village; Little Chalfont has received its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity in road network, parking, school and healthcare]. PORep0391 This preferred option should be dismissed as Little Chalfont has already experienced a See Volume 1. Mrs Gillian Grimsey disproportionate amount of development without any increase in infrastructure causing severe problems in our roads, schools, parking and health facilities. PORep0392 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure; increased flood risk to town centre; increased traffic Noted. See Volume 1. Mrs Ann Worrall congestion; harm to quality of life of existing residents; brownfield land to be used first; lack of exceptional circumstances; Chesham Society’s proposals are excellent and preferred to the Councils’]. PORep0393 Object to Option 1 [plan will result in unsustainable load on infrastructure and cause significant See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Felstead traffic congestion]. PORep0394 Object to Option 12 based on traffic, infrastructure, and loss of open space. See Volume 1. Mr Frank Jemmett There is a current proposal undergoing local consultation for an alternative development of 4.05 hectares of land known as Gam’s field. The area is bounded by Slough Road, Church Road, Church Path and the British Legion site/ Warren House farm. The proposal has the following elements: Dementia Care Home; Community Open Space; Support for Iver Heath PORep0395 Object to all Preferred Options [harm to Green Belt; loss of open space; overdevelopment]. Object See Volume 1. Mr Neil Salisbury to Option 1 [lack of road infrastructure capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0396 Object to Option 1 [insufficient infrastructure; traffic congestion; local authority cuts mean more See Volume 1. Mr Harry Brooke pressure on already over stretched services]. PORep0397 Object to Option 1 [loss of ambience and character; loss of farmland; loss of recreation space; See Volume 1. Miss Patricia Gomm increase in traffic and pollution; lack of school places; insufficient medical facilities; lack of train services; lack of parking; no exceptional circumstances]. PORep0398 My concerns fall into 4 categories these are: 1. Increased traffic 2. Insufficient infrastructure to See Volume 1. Mr Adrian Voak support the size of development 3. Building on Green Belt land 4. Integration of the traveling

Classification: OFFICIAL 49 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response community into the local population.

PORep0399 Object to Option 6 [loss of green space; harm to wildlife; risk of urban sprawl; conflict with central See Volume 1. Representations Mrs Sarah Osbourne Government commitment to protect Green Belt; unproven exceptional circumstances; Little made to the Issues and Chalfont has already seen significant recent growth; harm to existing residents’ quality of life; lack Options consultation have of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; impact on traffic congestion; flawed Green Belt helped inform the Preferred assessment methodology and conclusions; harm to setting of AONB]. Additional comments: 1) Options consultation. concern at the tone of the Council at public exhibitions; 2) it is illogical to consult on development when infrastructure needs are unknown; 3) previous consultation (Reg 18) demonstrated a large number of objections to releasing Green Belt land. PORep0400 Object to Option 9 [scale of development out of proportion with need of the district; affordable See Volume 1. Mrs J Buckle housing would be hard to achieve; lack of parking needs addressing; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; impact on traffic congestion; land at Holtspur next to M40 more appropriate for development; development at Wilton Park should be limited to just the old MoD site; provision of out of centre commercial space could harm town centre vitality; out-of-district alternative sites should be considered for commercial use]. PORep0401 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposed development is disproportionately large; harm to Green Belt See Volume 1. Mr James Hancocks and AONB; harm to rural character; infrastructure has not kept pace with recent development; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; Little Chalfont has already taken its fair share of recent development]. PORep0402 Object to Option 6 [lack of information about infrastructure needs in proposals; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Ian Cohen infrastructure capacity in the village; size of development would damage village; Little Chalfont has already taken its fair share of recent development]. PORep0403 Object to Option 1 [inappropriate site for development; insufficient infrastructure; increased See Volume 1. Mr Adrian Frantom pollution and traffic; harm to environment; development would be unsustatinable; brownfield land to be used instead of Green Belt]. PORep0404 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of capacity in Chesham sewage works with See Volume 1. Mr Paul associated overflow during heavy rain; over abstraction of ground water; lack of capacity in local Muggeridge-Breene road network]. PORep0405 Object to Option 6 [harm to AONB; harm to Green Belt; increased pollution; lack of capacity in See Volume 1. Mrs V Samson road network, schools, healthcare and sewage; harm to woodland and wildlife; Little Chalfont has had its fair share of recent development]. PORep0406 Mr Paul Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; risk of setting precedent of Green See Volume 1. Chappell; PORep0479 Belt development; risk of fundamental change to community; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share Classification: OFFICIAL 50 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Greg Chappell; of recent development; impact on traffic on A404 and air pollution; lack of parking; lack of capacity PORep0501 Nicole in education and health facilities; harm to biodiversity; harm to ancient woodland]. Chappell PORep0407 Object to all 15 Options [Green Belt development conflicts with GB purposes; brownfield options Noted. See Volume 1. Ms Jenny Lorde must be fully explored first; Chesham Society’s vision preferred; opportunity to redevelop Chesham for benefit of residents should be grasped]. PORep0408 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be used for house building; Little Chalfont has taken its See Volume 1. Mr Peter Sutton fair share of recent development; impact on traffic congestion through village; lack of parking, education and healthcare; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0409 Object to Option 1 [over-burdened local infrastructure; Chesham schools and health services are at See Volume 1. Mr Keith capacity; roads are at capacity; pressure on sewage and water system; housing need should only Muggeridge-Breene be met where infrastructure can support growth]. PORep0410 Green belt development needs to take into account the wider impact on the towns, roads, schools, See Volume 1. Mr Hemant Jivan trains and utilities. Chesham is a small town and roads, schools and other infrastructure cannot cope today, how does the expansion hope to address these challenges? PORep0411 Object to all 15 Options and specifically object to Option 1 [strain on town infrastructure; See Volume 1. Ms Liz Riley encroachment on countryside; loss of green space; harm to rural character]. PORep0412 Object to Option 6 [loss of open space; loss of amenity/recreation space]. See Volume 1. Mr David Churchill PORep0413 I write to object to the use of Green Belt land on the old Golf Course. I believe that this should See Volume 1. Mrs Luz Marina Churchill remain as open space and be available for the public to utilise. PORep0414 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt more important than ever; harm to flora and fauna; encroachment See Volume 1. Miss Emma Taylor on countryside; increase congestion; lack of road capacity; lack of parking; difficult to provide affordable housing due to local land value]. PORep0415 It is very busy going to school in the morning. We go along very thin roads without paths. It will Development can provide an Miss Alicia Taylor Wheeler get worse with more houses and cars. My school is full. The woods must be looked after and fields. opportunity to address and We have Muntjac but they get killed on the road a lot. improve infrastructure concerns. PORep0416 Object to Option 6 [loss of rural views; harm to village setting; harm to wildlife; increase in traffic See Volume 1. The Councils Miss Ella Vurdien congestion; Little Chalfont has already taken lots of recent development. have commissioned a Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development Classification: OFFICIAL 51 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character. PORep0417 Object to Option 1 [loss of wildlife habitat; loss of openness; conflict with purposes of Green Belt; See Volume 1. Mr Neil Watts road and sewerage infrastructure at capacity; harm to local character; loss of identity at Lye Green; scale of housing need specifically in Chesham unclear; brownfield sites to be used before Green Belt; lack of parking; increased traffic congestion and pollution]. PORep0418 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- early consideration of impact of development on the See Volume 1. These factors Anon town and how to mitigate this; improvements to transport infrastructure, parking and public will be determined in greater transport; provision of additional school capacity; provision of new open space and recreation detail at a later stage if the facilities; provision of affordable housing; protection of ancient woodland; provision of screening principle and scale of to limit impact on existing residents; retention of existing allotments; measures to protect Old development has been Town setting]. Additional concerns include: unproven exceptional circumstances; flawed housing established through the Local need calculation; proposed housing density too great; affordable housing difficult to achieve in Plan process. Beaconsfield; employment need figures flawed; unknown impact of Brexit; release should be limited to MoD site only; the area performs Green Belt purposes strongly; impact on travel time and traffic congestion; lack of parking; schools and healthcare capacity constraints; potential harm to listed buildings on site; potential harm to farmland and Mineral Safeguarding Area; communication with residents has been poor. PORep0419 Object to Option 6 [negative impact on local community; lack of schools, healthcare and parking See Volume 1. As part of the Ms Antoinette Harvey capacity; increase in traffic congestion; access roads to site are constrained; lack of footpath on consultation the Councils’ roads to site; potential contamination on site; harm to local businesses; location inappropriate for Planning Policy team consulted gypsy and traveller accommodation; harm to woodland and wildlife]. the Councils Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. The National Planning Policy on Traveller Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation Classification: OFFICIAL 52 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0420 Object to Option 6 [harm to quality of life; encroachment on open countryside; increase in traffic; See Volume 1. Mr Ronak Drone increase in pollution; lack of local infrastructure capacity; lack of school places; lack of parking]. PORep0421 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; brownfield sites to be used instead; See Volume 1. Mrs Caroline Holly housing should be better distributed across Chiltern and South Bucks; increased traffic congestion; increased pollution; pressure on sewage and drainage networks; increased risk of environmental harm; local schools and medical services at capacity; lack of public transport at site; site too far from town centre services; lack of parking]. PORep0422 Object to Option 11 [loss of local amenity; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of heathland; See Volume 1. Mrs Maureen Davies loss of recreation space; loss of Iver Heath fields would add pressure to Black and Langley Parks; loss of green space; harm to environment; no economic benefit to releasing the land; risk of coalescence of Iver Heath and Greater London]. PORep0423 Object to Option 11 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of heathland; loss of outdoor amenity See Volume 1. Mr Mark Roberts and recreation space; loss of wildlife and woodland; increase to road overcrowding; Pinewood expansion does not justify further release]. PORep0424 Object to Option 8 [no exceptional circumstances; existing permissions at Holy Cross site yet to be See Volume 1. As the site is Mr Mark Carlin built out; strain on local infrastructure; strain on road network, sewage system, schools and currently in the Green Belt the medical facilities; land at Option 8 is rural; previous applications at Winkers site refused on Green NPPF requires the Council to Belt grounds]. regard most development as inappropriate in this location. If the site is considered appropriate for release from the Green Belt in release takes place then this constraint will no longer apply. PORep0425 Object to Option 1 [loss of open countryside; proposed Green Belt development not well See Volume 1. Mr Francis Holly distributed across plan area; pressure on local services; negative impact on pollution, parking, traffic, noise, school places, doctors' surgeries and Tube line]. PORep0426 Support all Options [on basis that there are no Preferred Options in Chalfont St Giles]. Noted. Mr John Bradley

Classification: OFFICIAL 53 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0427 Object to Option 6 [inappropriate for the village; pressure on traffic, amenities and water system; See Volume 1. Dr Duncan Gould scale of proposal too great; existing infrastructure insufficient to support expansion; lack of PORep0475 parking; loss of village character; pressure on local road network; increased traffic congestion; loss Mrs Wendy Gould of openness; conflict with Green Belt assessment criteria; risk of urban sprawl; harm to setting of AONB; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife and wildlife habitats; Little Chalfont already taken substantial recent development; increase in safety risk to pedestrians and other road users]. PORep0428 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking; roads at capacity; lack of school See Volume 1. Mr Duncan O'Leary places; proposals lack sufficient details on costings and are therefore misleading; harm to the PORep0429 character of the village; Little Chalfont taken its fair share of recent development; Green Belt Mrs Rebecca O'Leary assessment scores Option 6 too low]. PORep0430 Mr William O'Leary PORep0431 Object to Option 11 [loss of green space; no exceptional circumstances; loss of community See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Locke amenity space; harm to quality of life of existing residents]. PORep0432 Object to Option 6 [harm to village community; increased pressure on local schools, healthcare See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Susan Russell and parking; harm to rural setting]. have commissioned a Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character. PORep0433 Object to Option 1 [increase in congestion; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity; See Volume 1. Ms Barbara Saunders pressure on sewerage network; brownfield sites available as alternative; infrastructure must lead development]. PORep0434 Object to Option 6 [Lodge Lane is a weaker feature than the existing boundary; parking, healthcare See Volume 1. Dr Gavin Cree and schools already under pressure in village; local road network around site is constrained; scale of proposed development too great; risk of urban sprawl and setting a precedent of Green Belt development]. PORep0435 Object to Option 6 [loss of amenity; damage to village character; Little Chalfont already seen See Volume 1. Mr David Jones substantial recent development; roads and parking cannot support further growth; integrity of Green Belt should be preserved to prevent harmful development].

Classification: OFFICIAL 54 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0436 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has reached development capacity; lack of parking; insufficient See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Norman local road network; lack of school places; affordable housing unachievable; harm to quality of life].

PORep0437 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; fundamental change to the community; See Volume 1. Mr Mark Hunter harm to character of Little Chalfont; lack of capacity on the local road network; lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to ancient woodland; lack of parking; lack of healthcare and school places; harm to wildlife]. PORep0438 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should remain Green Belt; risk of setting precedent; Little Chalfont See Volume 1. Mr David Witton already taken substantial share of recent development; impact on traffic congestion; lack of capacity in local schools, healthcare and water network; lack of capacity on train services; lack of parking; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; conflict with Green Belt purposes]. PORep0440 Object to Option 11 [loss of last remaining Heathland in the area; loss of open space; loss of local See Volume 1. Mr Ken Davies amenity; performs Green Belt purposes strongly; lack of infrastructure; impact on traffic and HGV traffic; loss of wildlife habitat; loss of community asset]. PORep0441 Object to Option 6 [harm to AONB and setting of AONB; prohibitive constraints on site access]. See Volume 1. Mr David Fishley PORep0442 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposals is excessive; proposal contains no infrastructure details; risk See Volume 1. Mrs Michele Bartram of urban sprawl; conflict with Green Belt purposes; lack of capacity in the road network; impact on traffic congestion; harm to village character; Little Chalfont has had its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity in schools and healthcare; lack of parking; risk of setting precedent for Green Belt development; cumulative impact of HS2 construction]. PORep0443 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure capacity in Chesham; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mr Ian Jarvis impact on pollution and air quality; proposed site too far from town centre services and train station; increased strain on the town’s sewage and drainage system; increase flood risk; lack of capacity in healthcare, schools and public transport; harm to Green Belt and AONB; loss of dog walking and rambling space; site is an unsustainable location]. PORep0444 Object to Option 1 [cumulative impact of Green Belt release on top of current Asheridge Road Noted. See Volume 1. Mrs Lorraine Boyd proposals; increased congestion along St Mary’s Way; lack of local infrastructure and services; lack of capacity in local healthcare; Chesham STW close to capacity; lack of school places; alternative vision proposed by The Chesham Society is preferable]. PORep0445 Object to Option 11 [loss of natural environment; fields mitigate harm from existing Pinewood See Volume 1. Mr Philip Hill expansion; harm to wildlife; loss of green open space; loss of outdoor recreation space; loss of space for dog walkers].

Classification: OFFICIAL 55 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0446 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt assessment scores site too low; harm to character of village; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs Lisa Pomaro wildlife; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; loss of countryside]. PORep0447 Object to Option 6 [harm to community; increase in traffic on A404; harm to character; risk of See Volume 1. Mr Christian Pomaro urbanisation and urban sprawl; loss of wildlife habitats]. PORep0448 Object to Option 1 [services for existing residents to be improved before progressing further See Volume 1. Mr Jose Aira Rodriguez development; any development at the site must be infrastructure and services-led]. PORep0449 Object to Option 1 [housing need does not justify developing Green Belt; Green Belt purposes all See Volume 1. Mrs Tracey Fenner performed by the site; brownfield sites to be developed before using Green Belt]. PORep0450 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; risk of urban sprawl; harm to rural character See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Frank Potts and open green space; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; scale of have commissioned a proposal out of proportion with rest of village; existing infrastructure is stretched to the limit; lack Landscape Assessment to of school places, parking and medical facilities; Green Belt release is being camouflaged as an establish a stronger opportunity to improve local infrastructure; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character. PORep0452 Support Option 1 [will boost supply of housing and affordable housing; selective Green Belt Noted. Dr Alexander Standish development need not harm broader openness and rural land; development can be used to lever in infrastructure improvements; more consultation and engagement will be needed as plan progresses]. PORep0453 Object to Option 7 [overdevelopment; strain on healthcare; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss See Volume 1. Mrs Joanne Turner of amenity and recreation space; lack of public transport; roads are narrow; increase traffic; many existing permissions in CSP yet to be built out; increased flood risk; Gerrards Cross and Great Missenden should also see development to spread development more fairly across the plan area; harm to sense of community; bias against Chalfont St Peter; CSP already taken its fair share of recent development]. PORep0454 Object to Option 9 [road infrastructure and Old Town parking lack capacity; housing need remains See Volume 1. Mrs T Ricci unproven; lack of school places]. PORep0455 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should be protected; harm to area’s special character; harm to See Volume 1. Mrs Gill Melhuish visitor numbers; harm to natural environment and wildlife; lack of capacity in local infrastructure including healthcare, social care and education; lack of parking; increased traffic congestion; lack of public transport; Little Chalfont has already taken substantial recent development; harm to quality of life of existing residents]. PORep0456 Object to Option 13 [expensive to rehabilitate polluted areas; phasing of development would delay As part of the consultation the

Classification: OFFICIAL 56 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mrs Wendy Hosler relief road for too long; option is isolated from Richings Park and Iver Village; proximity to Councils Planning Policy team forthcoming railway upgrades may limit deliverability of housing; loss of wildlife habitats]. Object consulted the Councils to Option 14 [land too close to M25; development would not facilitate relief road; potential Environmental Health team to contamination from previous uses]. General comment [support David Wilson Homes proposal for determine whether any of the development south of Iver Village with associated relief road]. options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0457 Object to Option 6 [harm to village character; harm to family-friendly community; scale or See Volume 1. Mr Benjamin Brocklesby proposals disproportionately large; infrastructure already stretched; lack of parking; lack of capacity on train services; incremental infill development already made Little Chalfont full]. PORep0458 Object to Option 1 [loss of Green Belt; site performs all Green Belt functions; loss of openness; loss See Volume 1. Dr Caroline Houlihan-Burne of identity for Lye Green; loss of farmland; loss of amenity and recreation space; harm to wildlife; alternative brownfield sites are available; Chesham’s infrastructure already at capacity; distance from site to town centre services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of capacity in local road network; lack of parking; additional noise and air pollution; Chesham branch line lacks capacity to expand; pressure on water and sewage networks; lack of school places at primary and secondary level; lack of capacity in healthcare facilities]. PORep0459 Object to all 15 Options [risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; apparent lack of See Volume 1. Ms Verity Lambert focus on brownfield sites; negative impact on local infrastructure; harm to community]. PORep0460 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt designation pointless if it can be rescinded; harm to ancient See Volume 1. Mrs Barbara Kinglake woodland and wildlife habitats; risk of urban sprawl; harm to character of Little Chalfont; Little Chalfont has had more than its fair share of recent development; inadequate infrastructure; difficult site access; impact on congestion on A404; lack of school places; stress on local healthcare; lack of public transport; increased pollution]. PORep0461 Support Option 14 [will provide land for local secondary school]. Noted. Mr Tom MacMillan PORep0462 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be released for housing; Little Chalfont has already had See Volume 1. Mrs Frances Ashdown housing development; The village would be bearing a disproportionate amount of development compared to other local towns; infrastructure must be planned ahead of development].

PORep0463 No comment on Preferred Options. Support release of Green Belt at Taplow Riverside/Mill Lane. Noted.

Classification: OFFICIAL 57 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Lynn Davies

PORep0464 I object to the above for the following reasons: 1. Destruction of Green Belt is not acceptable 2. See Volume 1. Mr Andrew York The A404 is already overloaded and impossible to negotiate at certain times of the day. 3. Increasing housing in the village by 30% will change it fundamentally to its detriment. 4. The site includes ancient woodland. PORep0465 Object to Option 6 [work on Green Belt release premature given HELAA is incomplete as full See Volume 1. Mr Barry Maiden potential from brownfield land is not yet known; Green Belt assessment and its conclusions contain flaws; loss of openness; harm to setting of AONB; site location at village perimeter enhances performance of Green Belt not weakens it; scale of proposed development too great for Little Chalfont; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0467 Mr Christopher Object to Option 6 [conflict with purpose of the Green Belt; infrastructure would not cope; loss of See Volume 1. Jarman; PORep0472 Mrs sense of community; impact on traffic on A404; decrease in road safety; increase in pollution; lack Deborah Jarman; of capacity in healthcare, drainage, utilities, parking, train services, schools and sports facilities; PORep0696 Miss Lucy housing need is not an exceptional circumstance; harm to AONB setting; Little Chalfont already Richardson; PORep0872 expanded in recent years; best solution to housing need in Bucks would be establishing a new Mrs Polly Richardson; town]. PORep0974 Mr Peter Young PORep0468 Land South of Lodge Lane, Prestwood ( 4.054) - The owners of the site would like to put the land See Volume 1. Mr David King forward for consideration for future development and a small scale boundary alteration. It is felt Sovereign Planning and that the provision of housing on the site, to a similar urban grain to the surrounding area, would Building Services not be an example of inappropriate development. It is felt that the retention of the mature boundary trees would enable future development to be adequately screened and therefore not to harm the openness of the Green Belt, and that carefully planned improvements to the site would improve the character and appearance of the locality whilst not having any adverse impacts on highway safety. Prestwood is a highly sustainable settlement that can accommodate increased levels of housing growth. The village has a range of existing facilities, services and employment and has excellent transport links by car, bus and the nearby train network. The site outlined in this document is suitably located available land, able to accommodate further growth that will help satisfy the strong demand in the market for affordable housing.

Classification: OFFICIAL 58 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0469 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be used for housing; site performs Green Belt purposes; See Volume 1. Ms D Samson harm to ancient woodland and wildlife habitats; loss of outdoor space and impact on health; negative visual impact on the area; harm to tourism; increased pollution; lack of infrastructure; lack of capacity on train services; lack of capacity in healthcare and schools; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; brownfield land should be developed instead of Green Belt; harm to town character; increased crime risk; harm to AONB; loss of countryside; risk of urban sprawl]. PORep0470 Object to Option 1 [Site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; exceptional circumstances are See Volume 1. Mr David Gilley unproven; town infrastructure insufficient for scale of development proposed; pressure on local road network and train services; harm to town’s economy; lack of secondary school capacity in particular; proposal is unsustainable]. PORep0471 Object to Option 6 [existing infrastructure is inadequate; harm to quality of life; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Mr William Noble congestion on the A404; lack of parking; lack of detail in proposal about schools and health facilities; change to community character; site performs Green Belt purposes; Little Chalfont has provided its fair share of recent development]. PORep0473 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; housing need is not an See Volume 1. Mr Douglas Robb exceptional circumstance; loss of recreation space; strain on infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; a more strategic approach to housing and infrastructure provision is required]. PORep0474 Object to Option 6 [harm to AONB and AONB setting; affordable housing unachievable in the See Volume 1. Mr Duncan Bell area; increased traffic congestion; lack of capacity at station car park and on train services; harm to quality of life; access to the site is limited and improvements would be costly; lack of local school places; lack of healthcare; proposals out of proportion with local area]. PORep0476 Object to Option 1 [housing need should not justify Green Belt development; harm to village See Volume 1. These factors Mr Edward Cooper character and community; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of openness; flawed outcome of will be determined in greater Green Belt assessment; unproven exceptional circumstances; impact on traffic congestion and detail at a later stage if the pollution; harm to setting of AONB; lack of infrastructure capacity; deficient assessment of principle and scale of infrastructure need in Infrastructure Capacity Survey; lack of capacity in local schools and medical development has been facilities; prohibitively constrained site access; distance from site to local services; lack of public established through the Local transport to site; harm to watercourses; high density estate would be inconsistent with adjacent Plan process. areas; harm to ancient woodland, wildlife and biodiversity]. PORep0477 General objection [Green Belt development should not occur until brownfield land is exhausted]. See Volume 1. Mr Gary Spinks Object to Option 1 [insufficient road infrastructure around site; smaller and more dispersed development would be better; provision of supporting infrastructure would be expensive; harm to wildlife; impact on traffic congestion; lack of public transport options; lack of town centre parking].

Classification: OFFICIAL 59 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0478 Support Option 6 [subject to provision of infrastructure including education, health and shopping Noted. See Volume 1. Gillian Blatherwick facilities]. PORep0480 Object to Option 1 [proposals appear to presume demand can only be met from within Green Belt; See Volume 1. Mrs Imogen Tilley disregard for infrastructure requirements; no indication of plan for Chesham as a whole; harm to area’s appearance; roads, schools, healthcare, drainage and water treatment already at capacity; distance from town centre and train station; brownfield land should be exhausted before Green Belt development; town centres should provide more housing; no exceptional circumstances]. PORep0481 Object to Option 12 based on traffic, infrastructure, and loss of open space. See Volume 1. Mrs Janet Jemmett There is a current proposal undergoing local consultation for an alternative development of 4.05 PORep0684 hectares of land known as Gam’s field. The area is bounded by Slough Road, Church Road, Church Mr Frank Jemmett Path and the British Legion site/ Warren House farm. The proposal has the following elements: Dementia Care Home; Community Open Space; Support for Iver Heath PORep0482 Object to Option 1 [sufficient development capacity on brownfield sites to make Green Belt release See Volume 1. Mr Jake Breach unnecessary; release would conflict with purposes of the Green Belt; risk of urban sprawl; decreased road safety on Lycrome Road]. PORep0483 Object to Option 6 [evidence base work on brownfield availability should be completed before See Volume 1. Jane Maiden progressing Green Belt release to better understand shortfall between need and availability; Green Belt assessment process was flawed and reached an incorrect conclusion; conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt; loss of openness; location at village boundary strengthen’s sites performance not weakens it; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0484 Object to Option 6 [pressure on the road system; Lodge Lane is already very dangerous; too much See Volume 1. Mrs Janet Hynes pressure on schools, shops and medical services; peak trains are already overcrowded and station car parking is full; the land is still valuable as Green Belt; loss of wildlife; sets a precedent for Green Belt development]. PORep0485 Object to Option 8 [impact on infrastructure from existing permissions in CSP not yet known; loss These factors will be Mrs J Graham of valuable community asset; impact on traffic congestion; proposed density out of character of determined in greater detail at the area]. Object to Option 7 [impact on traffic congestion; harm to openness and attractiveness of a later stage if the principle the area; loss of recreation space; site is prone to flooding; development could contribute to health and scale of development has issues of Epilepsy patients at the site]. been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0486 Object to Option 1 [impact on traffic congestion and road safety through Chesham; station car See Volume 1. Anon park at capacity; distance from site to town centre; development would probably be a pull factor for new residents rather than meet an existing need]. PORep0487 Object to Option 6 [development should be better spread around the districts and focussed on See Volume 1. Classification: OFFICIAL 60 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Nicholas West brownfield sites; insufficient supporting infrastructure; lack of infrastructure details in proposal; risk of urban sprawl; the scale, context and impact of Option 6 are all inappropriate]. PORep0488 Object to Option 1 [harm to environment; no exceptional circumstances; conflict with Green Belt See Volume 1. Mr John Gelder purposes; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; loss of openness; harm to setting of Lye Green; site access constraints; distance from site to town centre and services; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; lack of parking; increase in pollution; delivery of required on-site services beyond control of CDC; harm to AONB; harm to biodiversity; increased flood risk; availability of brownfield land within Chesham means Green Belt development unnecessary]. PORep0489 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be used for housing; harm to character of the village; See Volume 1. Mr John Coombe lack of parking; lack of capacity on train services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school places; house values will be suppressed; lack of healthcare capacity; loss of wildlife habitats; increased road safety risk]. PORep0491 Object to Option 1 [increased pollution & traffic, more strain on drainage, schools, doctors; no See Volume 1. Joyce Bennett exceptional circumstances]. PORep0492 Object to Option 7 [inner boundary review should be completed prior to Green Belt release; Mrs Judi Aylett development more appropriate elsewhere; cumulative impact from nearby Newlands Park permissions; site should remain C2 use; lack of capacity in local infrastructure; harm to listed buildings and ancient woodland]. Object to Option 8 [harm to important scout facility; distance from services and public transport; loss of amenity space; scale of proposals too great]. PORep0494 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; loss of openness; incorrect conclusion See Volume 1. The National Mr Keith Hoffmeister from Green Belt assessment; recent growth already put strain on infrastructure; lack of school Planning Policy on Traveller places and medical facilities; lack of parking; site inappropriate for gypsy and traveller pitches]. Sites encourages Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0495 Object to Option 6 [harm to countryside; loss of wildlife; harm to AONB; village not equipped for See Volume 1. Kai Yi Kelvin Wang population increase; impact on traffic congestion; lack of station parking; roads around site are narrow with limited capacity to expand; although some Green Belt development is needed Option 6 is unreasonable]. PORep0496 Object to Option 8 [Green Belt assessment incorrectly identifies land as semi-rural instead of rural; See Volume 1.

Classification: OFFICIAL 61 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Krzysztof Krokosz harm to rural character; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development and overdevelopment; lack of supporting infrastructure; loss of recreation space and green amenity space]. PORep0498 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl into Lye Green and loss of individual character; loss of See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Glen and Marion farmland; loss of recreation space; harm to attractiveness of surrounding; Brownfield sites should Marshall be used instead of Green Belt]. PORep0499 Object to Option 6 [harm to community; impact on traffic congestion; shopping areas See Volume 1. Mr Michael Hynes overcrowded; large population increase already in recent years; site access is inadequate and dangerous; site performs Green Belt objectives; Green Belt assessment conclusions are flawed; risk of setting a precedent for Green Belt development]. PORep0500 Object to Option 11 [loss of countryside and recreation space; loss of community asset]. See Volume 1. Mr Nick Wright PORep0502 Object to Option 1 [Tube services at capacity; traffic congestion and air pollution already high; See Volume 1. Nikki Bell sewage network at risk of flooding; lack of school places; healthcare is oversubscribed; harm to the environment and wildlife]. PORep0503 Object to Option 6 [proposals not in the best interests of the community; lack of infrastructure; See Volume 1. Pat Milne lack of capacity on local roads and in local healthcare; harm to local character and attractiveness of the area]. PORep0504 Object to Option 9 [harm to special historic character of Beaconsfield; lack of capacity in road See Volume 1. The National Mr Pavlos Panayi network; increase in traffic and air pollution; local services are already stretched; gypsy and Planning Policy on Traveller traveller pitches unnecessary; site provides buffer between town and M40; loss of cricket club Sites encourages Local facilities; loss of recreation space; unproven development need in Beaconsfield; conflict with Green Authorities to accommodate Belt purposes; brownfield land should be developed before Green Belt; harm to setting of AONB; Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling harm to ancient woodland; costs would outweigh gains]. Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0505 Object to Option 6 [harm to setting of AONB; risk of urban sprawl; harm to character of the area; See Volume 1. Pat Whitworth strain on local schools and healthcare; lack of parking; impact on traffic congestion; lack of local PORep0875 employment options; lack of infrastructure details in proposal; harm to ancient woodland; loss of John Whitworth wildlife habitat; increase in pollution]. PORep0506 Object to Option 6 [hard to support without knowing infrastructure plans; impact on traffic The principle of releasing the Mr Peter Bullock congestion; lack of capacity in local healthcare and schools; impact on water/sewage provision; land from Green Belt must be

Classification: OFFICIAL 62 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response harm to AONB; loss of wildlife]. established before specific plans for infrastructure development can be prepared. PORep0507 Object to Option 7 [retaining current C2 use is most appropriate for the site with scope for The Councils consider that the Mr Peter Nowell development to support this; site is poorly located for general housing; distance to public NSE site is retained in C2 use. transport services; harm to historic character of the area; lack of natural defensible boundary; site The release of the site could performs green belt purposes]. rationalise the existing development (which itself is encroachment in the Green Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0508 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has taken more than its fair share of recent development; strain See Volume 1. Rachael MacKeith on existing infrastructure and amenities; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare, transport and parking; impact on traffic congestion; harm to AONB; loss of ancient woodland; loss of wildlife].

PORep0509 Object to Options 2 and 3 [strain on local schools and healthcare; lack of local infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs BS and R Whitten capacity; strain on emergency services; collective impact of Wycombe DC’s new local plan will result in coalescence of Holmer Green and Wycombe; loss of identity; impact on traffic congestion; extra pressure on local road network; local schools too far from site; strain on Stoke Mandeville hospital; increased pressure on water and sewage networks; lack of drought resilience; brownfield sites to be developed before Green Belt; cumulative impact of HS2 construction; loss of farmland; unknown impact on housing demand as result of Brexit]. PORep0510 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; scale of See Volume 1. Dr Robert Colson proposed development out of proportion with other Chiltern development; unacceptable impact on infrastructure; harm to the nature of the village; impact on traffic, parking and social amenities]. PORep0511 Object to Option 2 [risk of merging Holmer Green and Hazlemere; loss of green fields; loss of rural See Volume 1. Robert Korcipa character; harm to wildlife and habitats; brownfield sites should be used instead; no exceptional

Classification: OFFICIAL 63 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0515 circumstances; local healthcare and schools insufficient to support development; lack of public Stella Stepien-Korpica transport; lack of parking; increase in traffic; increase in pollution; cumulative impact of Wycombe’s side of the development will be too great; lack of capacity in local utilities and services; harm to environment; loss of recreation space]. PORep0512 Object to Option 7 [site performs Green Belt purposes; no exceptional circumstances; site should The Councils consider that the Mrs Sally Hatton be retained for C2 use and safeguarded for similar needs in future; no defensible boundary NSE site is retained in C2 use. beyond edge of current built area]. Object to Option 8 [loss of residential amenity for Chalfont The release of the site could Heights; limited room for open space at proposed density; proposed density out of character with rationalise the existing surrounding area; site performs Green Belt purposes; harm to scouting activities and harm to development (which itself is viability of the scout camp; Infrastructure Capacity Study should be updated before progressing encroachment in the Green release; development should be closer to transport hubs]. Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0513 Object to Option 9 [local infrastructure already at capacity; roads already gridlocked; insufficient See Volume 1. Mrs Sarah Friend parking; lack of capacity on train services; lack of school places; public sector recruitment issues because of high living cost; development should come from better use of brownfield sites]. PORep0514 Object to Option 3 [site strongly performs Green Belt purposes; risk of coalescence of Hazelmere See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Simon & Judith and Penn; harm to setting of AONB; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife habitats; conflict Garrett with objectives of the Core Strategy; greater scope for development elsewhere; impact on bridleway safety; impact on traffic congestion at Hazlemere Crossroads; lack of capacity in local healthcare and schools; unproven exceptional circumstances]. PORep0516 Object to Option 6 [risk of urban sprawl into Greater London; impact on traffic on the A404 See Volume 1. Mr Stephen Lee through the village; lack of capacity on wider local road network; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; harm to biodiversity; insufficient access to shops]. PORep0517 Object to Option 11 [site inappropriate for development; impact on traffic congestion; harm to See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Suzy Mills Green Belt; lack of exceptional circumstances; Pinewood development should not justify further will need to carefully consider Green Belt release; conflict with Green Belt purposes and spirit of original purchase by SBDC]. the role of the land in local Object to Option 12 [lack of infrastructure]. community life when assessing

Classification: OFFICIAL 64 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response how best to meet the Districts’ development needs.

PORep0518 Object to Option 1 [severe impact on traffic congestion; increased damage to road surfaces; See Volume 1. Mr Tim Pridham impact on local healthcare provision; lack of parking; harm to character of town and harm to rural setting of the town]. PORep0519 Object to Option 6 [harm to ancient woodland; harm to setting of AONB; harm to wildlife; impact See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs T G Nicol on traffic congestion in general and Burtons Lane in particular; cumulative impact from HS2; scale of potential population increase too great; conflict with Green Belt purposes; Little Chalfont has taken its share of recent development; lack of parking for shopper and commuters; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0520 Object to Option 8 [impact from existing unbuilt permissions in CSP not yet known; other towns in See Volume 1. The completed Mr William Lade the District have no preferred option sites; brownfield capacity across the District is not identified; Infrastructure Capacity Study Infrastructure Capacity Study should be updated before progressing release; development should and Inner Green Belt Boundary be closer to transport hubs; conclusions of the Green Belt assessment are illogical; lack of Review will inform the final exceptional circumstances; harm to viability of Paccar scout camp; loss of residential amenity for draft plan. Chalfont Heights; proposed density out of character with surrounding area; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; lack of public transport; loss of rural character]. Object to Option 7 [evidence appears skewed in favour of release; Inner Green Belt Boundary Review should be completed prior to Preferred Options process; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; more suitable areas elsewhere; conflict with CSP Neighbourhood Plan; site should be retained and safeguarded for C2 and medical use; harm to listed buildings and historic character; lack of public transport; harm to ancient woodland; lack of defensible boundary as proposed]. PORep0521 Object to Option 5 [impact on access for residents of Whielden Green private road; risk of further See Volume 1. Yvonne Ubels damage to road surface; increase in noise levels; harm to safety of footpath users]. PORep0522 Site 4.221 - Our representations specifically focus on re-promoting and addressing the Council’s See Volume 1. Mr P Woodbridge reasons for rejecting the land to the west of Chalfont Road and East of Highlands Road, Seer Thorney Farm Green, Beaconsfield from further assessment. The site has previously been considered as part of Developments the Council’s Green Belt Assessment Part Two (site ref: 4.221) wherein it was concluded that the On behalf of Woodbridge site would not be taken forward for further assessment in the consultation process since a of Thorney Farm permanent and defensible boundary to the Green Belt could not be demonstrated. This Developments representation seeks to respond and address this issue. In addressing the reasons for excluding this site, we consider that the Council’s assessment falls short of assessing the true opportunity that this site has to offer as a sustainable extension to the settlement of Seer Green. The only boundary that does not meet these rigid criteria is the site boundary to the north. A more Classification: OFFICIAL 65 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response defensible boundary treatment could be incorporated as part of the development of this site. This could include an appropriate design solution (such as roads, walls, tree planting etc.) which would serve to introduce more permanent and defensible features along the northern boundary enclosing the site PORep0523 General comments: [space must be found for housing; the type of housing required must be Noted. See Volume 1. The Cllr Murray Harrold identified; understanding the demographics of the local market is key; Green Belt development Councils will try to maximise must focus on meeting specific and identified needs rather than on quantity alone; imaginative the density on land released solutions for delivering affordable housing are needed; the Council must retain close control of for development (Green Belt Green Belt development to ensure best use of the land; financial contributions to affordable and non-Green Belt) in order housing must be sought from developers; densification within existing urban areas must be to make the most efficient use sought to minimise demands upon Green Belt; development capacity may be impacted by of the land and ensure that Heathrow expansion; points-based mechanism for determining financial contributions should be they are striving to meet the considered to provide better housing mix; more radical thinking required to limit Green Belt objectively assessed housing development]. need. High density should not come at the cost of good design, however, and in considering this appearance, layout and access are fundamental to the suitability of any potential development. These factors will be determined in greater detail at a later stage ifthe principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0524 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has absorbed substantial recent development already; impact See Volume 1. Ruth Miller on traffic volume and congestion; impact on road safety; pressure on infrastructure and healthcare provision; harm to AONB; brownfield alternatives should be identified]. PORep0525 Object to Option 1 [will increase traffic; site too far from town centre and services; lack of school See Volume 1. Mr William Spiers and healthcare capacity; loss of openness; development should be better distributed across district; increased pollution]. PORep0526 Object to Option 11 [loss of Green Belt for future generations; erosion of village character; loss of See Volume 1. Miss Sian Brooks green space; loss of wildlife habitats; exacerbates existing impact from Pinewood expansion; loss

Classification: OFFICIAL 66 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response of identity for Iver Heath; harm to community spirit; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development]. PORep0527 Object to Option 9 [conflicts with Green Belt purposes; impossible to deliver truly affordable See Volume 1. Mr Clive Chapman homes in Beaconsfield; existing infrastructure is already at capacity; lack of capacity at local PORep0534 schools and medical facilities; any development should be infrastructure-led; A355 relief road will Mrs Patricia Chapman be too small to support further growth; land between M40 and A40 should be considered again for development; strategic new homes should be delivered via a new settlement]. PORep0528 1. Urbanisation, congestion and resultant pollution 2. Insufficient Infastructure 3. Biodiversity See Volume 1. Mr Shezad Syed PORep0529 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; scale of proposal too great for the See Volume 1. Mr Rick Lawrence context and would cause disproportionate damage; lack of capacity in local roads, parking, education and healthcare; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife habitat]. PORep0530 Object to Option 1 [Green Belt should be respected; significant impact on infrastructure of See Volume 1. Ms Beverley Pomells Chesham; increased pressure on traffic, parking and air quality; lack of places in schools and healthcare; strain on sewage and drainage]. PORep0531 Object to Option 6 [risk of fundamentally changing the community; increased stress on roads, See Volume 1. Mr Simon Williams parking, education and healthcare; Little Chalfont has already taken substantial recent PORep0532 development; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife habitat; harm to setting of the AONB; Miss Harshida Mistry site scored too low in Green Belt assessment]. PORep0533 Object to Option 6 [housing need does not justify Green Belt development; risk of setting See Volume 1. Mrs Susan Brocklehurst precedent of Green Belt development; risk of fundamentally changing and damaging the community; Little Chalfont already seen more than its fair share of recent development; lack of spare capacity in roads, parking, education and healthcare; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife habitats]. PORep0535 Object to Option 6 [harm to ancient woodland and wildlife; negative impact on local infrastructure, See Volume 1. Mr M Saini roads, parking education and healthcare; purposes of Green Belt must be respected; Little Chalfont already seen more recent development than surrounding areas; change to community].

PORep0536 Object to Option 6 [two recent new developments already; traffic volume and road safety; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Miller school and healthcare capacity; lack of infrastructure capacity; development potential of brownfield sites to be exploited before Green Belt used]. PORep0537 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; Green Belt should be preserved for future See Volume 1. Mr Ceri Rees generations; Green Belt development irreversible; loss of open green space; harm to quality of life; lack of capacity in schools and public services; insufficient local road network; impact on traffic Classification: OFFICIAL 67 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response congestion; lack of capacity on train services; scale of proposed development disproportionate to level of need; harm to character of the village]. PORep0538 Object to Option 6 [site too open to release; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife; lack of See Volume 1. Ms Hilary McLean capacity on local roads and site access roads; impact on traffic congestion; lack of space on train services; lack of capacity in schools and healthcare; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; development should be focussed on brownfield sites; loss of open space; loss of wildlife]. PORep0539 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purpose of the Green Belt; A404 already too congested; See Volume 1. Mr Peter Heffer infrastructure already overloaded; lack of capacity in schools and healthcare; harm to AONB]. PORep0598 Miss Samantha Heffer PORep0540 Object to Option 1 [traffic congestion is already severe; cumulative impact from HS2 construction; See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Amy Pridham lack of parking; lack of space on train services; increase in pollution; stress on schools and must seek to meet as much of healthcare; development should be focussed in more sustainable locations such as Ayslesbury]. their Objectively Assessed Need within the Plan Area as possible. PORep0541 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; See Volume 1. Mrs Sue Robb lack of space on train services; lack of school places; harm to quality of life and to village character; no exceptional circumstances; Green Belt assessment should score site highly; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; harm to AONB]. PORep0542 Object to Option 13 [harm to prime wildlife habitat; high risk of land contamination from former As part of the consultation the Mr Tim Hurley uses; option does not provide hook for a relief road; complex site ownership would delay delivery; Planning Policy team consulted PORep0543 site may need to be safeguarded for HS2 works]. Object to Option 14 [site too small to effectively the Councils’ Environmental Claire Maddock address housing need especially given need for on-site screening from M25; high risk of ground Health team to determine contamination; option does not provide hook for a relief road]. General comments on Iver area whether any of the options [impact from concurrent major infrastructure projects must be factored in; loss of HGVs may be identified have land offset by sharp increase in residential traffic; relief road alignment should be north-south not contamination issues; these east-west]. comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0544 Object to Option 6 [substantial recent development already in Little Chalfont; lack of parking; lack See Volume 1. Mrs M Lawrenson of space on peak rail services; recent densification has already increased demand on village PORep0545 services; loss of rural character; harm to nature and character of the village; risk of setting

Classification: OFFICIAL 68 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Stephen Lawrenson precedent of Green Belt development; harm to AONB setting; lack of capacity in local healthcare and schools]. PORep0546 Object to Option 6 [A404 already too congested; village infrastructure already overloaded; lack of See Volume 1. Miss Charlotte Heffer school places; lack of capacity in local healthcare; harm to AONB; loss of biodiversity; PORep0794 encroachment onto countryside; loss of rural character and features; increased air pollution]. Mrs Jill Heffer PORep0547 Object to Option 2 [loss of habitat and green open space; harm to wildlife; harm to AONB; risk of See Volume 1. Philip urban sprawl and coalescence of Hazlemere and Holmer Green; impact on traffic congestion; harm to village feel and character]. PORep0548 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposal is out of proportion with existing village; harm to lives of See Volume 1. Mr Peter Burgess existing villagers; Little Chalfont taken its fair share of recent development; loss of attractive countryside; development would require replacement of the narrow railway bridge]. PORep0549 Object to Option 6 [encroachment onto Green Belt; change in the nature of the village; exacerbate See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Ian Griffiths parking and congestion problems; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of rural character; loss of have commissioned a wildlife; harm to ancient woodland]. Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character. PORep0550 Object to Option 7 [lack of sustainable transport options; poor site access; increase in traffic See Volume 1. The Councils Ms Elizabeth Neill congestion; distance from site to community facilities; current infrastructure requires will seek to ensure that there is improvements; current roads not suitable for expansion; target demographic of development a sufficient supply of unclear from proposals; development should be better distributed around the Plan Area; lack of employment sites within the local employment options]. plan. This may include release of existing employment sites for alternative uses and protecting the sites which are the most important. PORep0551 Object to Option 9 [no need for development of proposed scale; existing Wilton Park proposals See Volume 1. Mrs Linda Vick already likely to be a burden; change to town character; increased traffic; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare and council services; affordable housing impossible in Beaconsfield]. PORep0552 Neutral comments on all Options [housing need is clear; density must be carefully considered to Noted. Mr Stuart Homer ensure quality of life not compromised; proposals contain no infrastructure details; careful

Classification: OFFICIAL 69 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response planning needed to ensure no negative impact on character of area].

PORep0554 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; evidence documents score Green See Volume 1. Mrs Sue Jefferys Belt performance too weakly; houses should not be built on Green Belt; change to community character; two recent developments already in Little Chalfont; pressure on roads, parking, schools, healthcare; loss of ancient woodland; Little Chalfont already taken its fair share of recent development]. PORep0555 Object to Option 1 [negative effect on whole town; increase in traffic jams and pollution; strain on See Volume 1. Mrs Susan Rothwell schools, healthcare and public services; better sites available outside the Green Belt]. PORep0556 Object to Option 7 [harm to community cohesion; loss of community facilities; lack of local road See Volume 1. Mr Sadiqul Basit capacity; cumulative impact from HS2 construction; lack of affordability; negative tone of development communication; consultation is half-hearted and final decision appears decided; agree with all points raised by Chalfont St Peter Parish Council]. PORep0557 Object to Option 6 [irresponsible to consider Green Belt whilst brownfield options remain; impact All local authorities must plan Mrs Tracey Beaney on demand from Brexit not yet understood; fundamental change to character of village; conflict to meet their Objectively with purpose of Green Belt; Little Chalfont has had more than its fair share of recent development; Assessed Housing Need which development is driven by profits only; consultation process is flawed as infrastructure details are takes account of both local and not provided and some residents may not be able to respond electronically; loss of ancient national factors. See Volume 1. woodland and attractive views]. The Preferred Options considers the case for the principle of Green Belt release. It is not a detailed masterplanning exercise and is not intended to facilitate the forecast of costs associated with development or mitigation work. These issues and others will be the subject of further work at an appropriate time. PORep0558 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; harm to AONB; loss of ancient woodland; See Volume 1. Mr Stephen Adams Little Chalfont already taken disproportionate level of recent development; lack of parking; strain on infrastructure; scale of proposed development too large; harm to character of village; risk of coalescing with Chorleywood and Amersham]. Classification: OFFICIAL 70 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0559 Object to all Green Belt release [conflict with original purpose of the Green Belt; risk of urban See Volume 1. The preparation Mr Peter Sims sprawl and settlement coalescence; risk of private interests leading strategic planning decisions; of the Local Plan, including the employment generation should be better distributed across the country to spread housing need; Green Belt Preferred Options new development should be primarily self-build; empty investment properties in London should work, is objective and be utilised for housing; housing targets should be based on enhancing quality of life not just evidence-led and will be tested growth]. independently at examination prior to adoption. PORep0560 Object to Option 6 [local roads around site lack capacity; impact on traffic congestion; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Robert Gorringe shops and parking; harm to wildlife habitats; loss of AONB; lack of school and GP places; steep hill at site entrance could be dangerous in winter].

PORep0561 Object to Option 6 [proposed capacity of 1000 dwellings is unrealistic; lack of supporting See Volume 1. Mr Mike Fenton education and community facilities; negative impact on local road network, especially Roughwood Lane; existing lack of resilience in local road network; full traffic appraisal would be essential prior to any development]. PORep0562 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; low Green Belt assessment score appears See Volume 1. Mr Peter Inkpen unjustified; loss of buffer between Little Chalfont and settlements to the south and east; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; Little Chalfont already taken greater share of recent development than other settlements in the district; population increase would overload local infrastructure and services; lack of capacity in local road network around site]. PORep0563 Land to the Rear of Hill Cottage, Bowstridge Lane, Chalfont St Giles - If the council is minded to See Volume 1. Mr Alex Bach address this anomaly and remove the revised area 4.150A from the Green Belt then the CSG conservation area should be extended to incorporate option site 4.150. As highlighted by the Stage 2 assessment this site has significant importance for the setting and character of the historic centre of Chalfont St Giles. Development of this site will have a significant landscape impact given important views from public rights of way including roads and footpaths. Development would also impact on listed buildings including Milton’s Cottage (Grade I), Stonewell’s Cottage (Grade II*), Hill House (Grade II), The Old Rectory (Grade II*). PORep0564 4.154 and 4.155 - With regards to these sites which abut each other it is considered that the See Volume 1. Mr Bjorn Hall Boundary Assessment made is incorrect. As a joint site it is considered that there are defensible boundaries to the north, east, south & west. The north and north-eastern boundary connects the site to the existing built-up area of Chalfont St. Giles. The eastern boundary is defined by Narcot Lane, a public highway, the western boundary is defined by public highway Route CSG/11/12 (Footpath) and the southern boundary is defined by a community sports facility. PORep0565 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- provision of additional infrastructure including in Noted. See Volume 1. Classification: OFFICIAL 71 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr David Heeley existing town; scaling down of proposals to produce fewer homes and a smaller scheme; traffic improvements; additional school and healthcare facilities; Pyebush relief road being two lanes instead of one; provision of elderly accommodation; provision of public park; exclusion of gypsy accommodation; exclusion of office development]. PORep0566 Object to Option 6 [land should remain Green Belt; proposal too large for Little Chalfont; harm to See Volume 1. Mrs Kathleen Redington community; substantial recent development in the village already; strain on roads, parking, education and healthcare; harm to woodland and wildlife]. PORep0567 Object to Option 1 [proposals are disproportionate to the size of Chesham; harm to town; loss of See Volume 1. Mr Paul Warminger openness; loss of identity at Lye Green; harm to environment; increased traffic congestion; impact on traffic congestion; increased crime; strain on parking, schools and healthcare; no exceptional circumstances; loss of farmland; loss of openness; harm to attractive aesthetic of area; risk of flooding; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of wildlife; road and drainage infrastructure at capacity; site too far from local services and town centre; lack of capacity on Underground services]. PORep0568 Object to Option 9 [traffic already at a standstill; lack of space on train services; lack of resilience in See Volume 1. These factors Mr Matthew O'Connell local road network; harm to historic town character; loss of wildlife; no exceptional circumstances; will be determined in greater housing need calculation is flawed; too high a proportion of overall district need being proposed detail at a later stage if the in Beaconsfield; proposed density out of character for Beaconsfield; affordable housing not principle and scale of possible in Beaconsfield; proposed employment area too large; impact of Brexit on demand not development has been yet known; increasing supply of homes will not address housing crisis in isolation; release should established through the Local be limited to the existing developed Wilton Park area; site performs Green Belt purposes; Plan process. encroachment onto countryside; harm to setting and character of the Old Town Conservation Area; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to listed buildings; harm to viability of allotments and cricket club]. PORep0569 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB setting; loss of open space; evidence See Volume 1. Mr Richard Bradley documents score site too weakly; risk of setting precedent and facilitating further Green Belt development; unproven exceptional circumstances; harm to character of village; development should be better distributed around the Plan Area; substantial recent development already in Little Chalfont; extent of infrastructure impacts are uncertain; lack of parking; insufficient retail facilities to support growth; increase in traffic congestion on A404 and local roads; lack of local employment options; impact on wildlife needs further exploration; lack of capacity on trains to London; site accessibility is poor; Little Chalfont being unreasonable targeted].

Classification: OFFICIAL 72 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0570 Object to Option 9 [insufficient infrastructure; impact on traffic; lack of capacity on local roads; See Volume 1. Mr Howard Thomas bypass will not offset impact from new development; lack of parking; increased pollution; inadequate public transport; lack of capacity in local healthcare services; loss of cricket club; harm to ancient woodland; significant harm to town character; affordable housing unachievable in Beaconsfield; conflict with Green Belt purposes; unproven exceptional circumstances; development would be profit-driven]. PORep0571 Object to Option 6 [encroachment of the Green Belt; unproven exceptional circumstances; See Volume 1. Mr Philip Chapman Chesham and Amersham have better infrastructure; Little Chalfont already take substantial recent development; lack of parking; impact on traffic; constrained local roads; constrained site access; lack of capacity in healthcare, education and water provision]. PORep0572 Object to Option 6 [services already struggling; schools full; traffic on A404 heavy; harm to quality See Volume 1. Mrs Janice Gray of life; lack of parking; potential harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. PORep0573 Object to Option 6 [strain on local services, schools and healthcare; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mr Alan Turner lack of parking; change to character of village; recent developments mean Little Chalfont has already contributed to meeting housing need]. PORep0574 Object to Option 6 [no exceptional circumstances; conflict with Green Belt purposes; constrained See Volume 1. Judith Durey local roads; impact on traffic congestion on the A404; already been two large housing estates recently built in the village; lack of school places; infrastructure already overstretched; further strain on train services; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife]. PORep0575 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should be preserved; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; See Volume 1. Mr Michael Richardson harm to AONB setting; loss of ancient woodland; loss of open space; strain on local infrastructure; lack of school and healthcare places; lack of capacity on train services; lack of parking; increased traffic congestion; harm to nature and character of the village; Little Chalfont has already taken its fair share of development; development is profit-driven]. PORep0576 General comment on process [work on infrastructure provision should have been completed The absolute requirement for Mr Gary Bartlett before dwelling capacities calculated for each site]. Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- affordable housing will be Infrastructure improvements with finance for these secured prior to development as viability at risk subject to overall development otherwise; provision of at least 40% affordable housing; potential expansion of Brushwood school; viability when balanced with efforts to mitigate distance from site to town centre as required by core strategy policy CS21]. other obligations such as Support Option 9 [will enable diversion of traffic away from Beaconsfield centre; opportunity to infrastructure improvements. provide significant amount of affordable housing]. Conditional support for Option 8 [boundaries appear defensible; land performs little Green Belt function; proposed density should be decreased; development should include specialist elderly accommodation]. Support Option 3 [Common Wood provides strong new boundary]. Support Option 2 [land already under urban influences;

Classification: OFFICIAL 73 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response opportunity to provide additional travelling show people accommodation if required; density could be increased to ensure consistency with rationale for other preferred options; access must be via improved A404 junction]. PORep0577 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont already taken a lot of recent development; scale of proposed The National Planning Policy Mrs Marian Hoffmeister development would have negative impact on the community; strain on existing infrastructure; lack on Traveller Sites encourages of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; Gypsy and traveller pitches would be Local Authorities to inappropriate; the Little Chalfont Community Association response is supported]. accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0578 Object to Options 7 and 8 [clear bias against Chalfont St Peter given that no sites are identified in The Councils consider that the Mr Francis Fearn Great Missenden or Gerrards Cross; existing unbuilt permissions will put strain on village NSE site is retained in C2 use. infrastructure; lack of public transport; options perform Green Belt purposes strongly; conflict with The release of the site could Green Belt purposes; NSE site should be retained for future C2 needs; harm to listed buildings; loss rationalise the existing of amenity space and leisure facilities; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC]. development (which itself is encroachment in the Green Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0579 Object to Option 7 [NSE site already undergoing development; harm to open and semi-rural The Councils will seek to Mrs Hilary Fearn character of the site; local roads around site lack capacity; lack of public transport; loss of conserve heritage assets. community amenities and recreation space; harm to listed buildings; no exceptional circumstances]. PORep0580 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- upgrades to public services; enforcing use of high Noted. The Council will seek to Mr Paul Jackson sustainability features in new development including solar panels, biodigesters and electric car encourage and enable charging ports]. sustainability in new

Classification: OFFICIAL 74 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response development rather than prescribing specific features and strategies by which to achieve this. PORep0582 Object to Option 7 [impact on traffic and road safety; lack of school places; pressure on sewage See Volume 1. Mrs Jenny Brice network; lack of public transport; affordable housing difficult to deliver; cumulative impact of HS2; harm to rural character]. PORep0583 Object to Options 7 and 8 [high number of existing unbuilt permissions in CSP; Gerrards Cross The Councils consider that the Mrs Susan Babb should also receive development as transport links are better; lack of capacity in CSP local roads; NSE site is retained in C2 use. NSE site should be retained for future C2 use; loss of community amenities; loss of scouting The release of the site could facilities; lack of school places]. rationalise the existing development (which itself is encroachment in the Green Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0584 Object to Option 1 [brownfield should be used instead of Green Belt; risk of setting precedent for See Volume 1. Mrs Melanie McCarthy Green Belt development; infrastructure unable to cope; impact on traffic congestion and air pollution; pressure on sewer network; lack of school and healthcare capacity; Chesham Society’s response and proposals supported; a more creative approach to meeting need must be found to revitalise Chesham and avoid harming its character]. PORep0585 Object to Option 6 [risk of creating precedent for future Green Belt development; site performs See Volume 1. Mr Michael Barr Green Belt purposes strongly; scale of change too great; local infrastructure could not cope; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare, road network and parking; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife].

Classification: OFFICIAL 75 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0588 Object to Option 6 [performs Green Belt purposes strongly; conflict with NPPF and Green Belt See Volume 1. Mrs Lucy Roberts purposes; Green Belt assessment score is too low; risk of setting precedent for future Green Belt PORep0589 development; Little Chalfont has had its fair share of recent development; infrastructure under Mr Nicholas Roberts stress; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife habitats].

PORep0590 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be developed; lack of infrastructure; lack of capacity on See Volume 1. Mr Nicholas Peters train services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare places; Little Chalfont has had its fair share of recent development; harm to community character].

PORep0591 Object to Option 6 [conflict with aims of the Green Belt; harm to setting of AONB; existing GB See Volume 1. Mrs Jordana Barnett boundary formed by railway line is most defensible; safety risk on site access roads; Little Chalfont already absorbed significant recent development; harm to character; additional pressure on infrastructure; lack of school places and doctors; lack of capacity on local road network; lack of parking; harm to wildlife; loss of ancient woodland]. PORep0592 Object to Option 6 [strongly performs Green Belt purposes; evidence documents score site’s Green See Volume 1. Mr Daniel Barnett Belt performance too weakly; risk of setting precedent of further Green Belt development; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; constrained site access; lack of parking; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare and community facilities]. PORep0593 Object to Option 1 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; negative impact on local roads, sewage, See Volume 1. Ms Kim Tyrrell pollution, schools and healthcare; Brownfield sites should be used instead of Green Belt]. PORep0594 Object to Option 1 [fields should remain Green Belt; development must not be allowed on Green See Volume 1. Mr Lee Tyrrell Belt; risk of setting precedent for further Green Belt development]. PORep0595 Object to Option 1 [loss of Green Belt; lack of school places; harm to landscape quality; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Barin Dodhia healthcare capacity; impact on traffic; increased pollution; harm to town in general]. PORep0596 Object to Option 6 [loss of important Green Belt; loss of rural setting; loss wildlife habitat; harm to See Volume 1. These factors Mrs Pirkko Soundy ancient woodland; proposed density out of character with village; unproven exceptional will be determined in greater circumstances; Little Chalfont already received disproportionate level of recent development; site is detail at a later stage if the poorly accessible; local road network is inadequate; lack of capacity on train services; harm to principle and scale of village character; harm to setting of the AONB; impact on traffic congestion; lack of local development has been employment options; affordable housing hard to achieve in the area; loss of openness; Green Belt established through the Local assessment is flawed; risk of overurbanisation]. Plan process. PORep0597 General comment [support the fact that there are no Preferred Options in Great Missenden]. Noted. Mrs Anne Kaneko Conditional support for Option 4, Option 5 and Option 9 [subject to infrastructure improvements to support extra pressure on transport and roads]. Classification: OFFICIAL 76 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0599 Object to Option 6 [increased traffic congestion; lack of parking; harm to small town character]. See Volume 1. Mrs Kim Ginger PORep0600 Object to Option 9 [insufficient infrastructure; strain on schools, roads and healthcare; gypsy and See Volume1. The National Mr Graeme Dell traveller provision unjustified given local availability; loss of gap between Beaconsfield and Seer Planning Policy on Traveller Green / Gerrards Cross; loss of attractive countryside; lack of capacity on road network, sewers and Sites encourages Local utilities; Green Belt assessment appears subjective and flawed]. Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0601 Your Local Plan Issues and Options concluded that development needs could not be sustainably Noted. The Draft Green Belt Mr Max Baker met within Chiltern and South Bucks, with an estimated unmet need of 5,800 dwellings. It is noted Assessment Part 2 is due to be Head of Planning that whilst there may be some potential for some of the unmet need to be provided through the updated following this Bracknell Forest Council Aylesbury Local Plan, this does not yet have full agreement, so at this stage the amount of need consultation; one such change that could be accommodated has not yet been defined. will include wider sustainability Should all Green Belt sites be released from the Green Belt it is unclear whether there would still considerations which will be be unmet need, or what the amount of unmet need would be. factored in. We have concerns regarding your approach to exceptional circumstances. It would appear from The point regarding housing the ‘Draft Green Belt Assessment Part 2 (October 2016)’ that sites have been identified from the need constituting exceptional Part 1 study. An ‘exceptional circumstances assessment’ has only been undertaken on sites where circumstances is not the full they perform weakly against one or more Green Belt purpose, or perform strongly against only position as housing need alone one Green Belt purpose. An ‘exceptional circumstances assessment’ has not been undertaken on should not be taken as an sites which score strongly against one or more of the Green Belt purposes. It is not clear from exceptional circumstance to the Part 2 methodology why an ‘exceptional circumstances assessment’ has not been undertaken release land from the Green for all sites identified within the Part 2 study. In our view the consideration of exceptional Belt; given the high level of circumstances and assessment against the purposes of the Green Belt are two separate test required this should be considerations. As there appears to be unmet need within the two Districts, this could be treated assessed on a site by site basis as an exceptional circumstance, so should be assessed for all sites. We are concerned that this based on the unique approach may restrict your ability to meet identified development needs. Certain points made in circumstances of each option the Inspector’s Report on the Vale of the White Horse District Council’s Local Plan dated 30th being assessed. In the absence November 2016 appear to be of relevance to the situation in Chiltern and South Bucks. For of a national methodology for example, at para 83 he states: ‘However, national policy does not prohibit an authority from assessing exceptional revising Green Belt boundaries subject to it being done in exceptional circumstances, through a circumstances the Councils Classification: OFFICIAL 77 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response local plan and having regard to the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. I have considered these within therefore do not accept the argument that a revision of the Green Belt boundaries is inherently the Part 2 methodology and unsustainable.’ Green Belt Options Appraisal. In conclusion, further understanding is required about how Authorities within the Central The Councils will continue to Buckinghamshire HMA are intending to achieve sustainable development, and meet their actively engage all identified needs, including working collaboratively with Authorities in the Eastern Berkshire HMA. neighbouring authorities on If not, there may be implications for Bracknell Forest and the Western Berkshire HMA. cross boundary issues through exercising the Duty to Co-operate. The more detailed points made regarding housing distribution and delivery is subject to further evidence base work and exercising the Duty to Co-operate. PORep0602 Arqiva Site, Chalfont Grove - Our entire interest at Chalfont Grove extends to some 57 hectares, See Volume 1. Mr Saleem Shamash but within that is a smaller core operational area covering approximately 8.1ha that is the subject Arqiva of these and our previous representations. The Site and the teleport in particular are of national The Councils will also seek to and international importance and significant in terms of the economy and sustainability. The support the sustainable growth teleport at Chalfont Grove is pivotal in meeting new satellite services which will make a major of important employment contribution to the UK and local economy. The continued evolution and development of the Site is generating uses through consistent with the encouragement given to modern communications in the National Planning policies contained in the Plan. Policy Framework (NPPF) and would help the attainment of local objectives.

It is important that the emerging local planning policy framework should facilitate and encourage the continued evolution and development of this site. PORep0603 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont already absorbed more recent development than surrounding See Volume 1. The Councils Mr James Dixon; settlements; Chalfont St Peter, Amersham and Chesham are larger and would absorb growth have commissioned a PORep0604 better; impact on traffic congestion on A404; limited capacity on Burtons Lane; strain on local Landscape Assessment to Mrs Jill Dixon; services; lack of parking; strain on schools, healthcare and waste water system; site is too open to establish a stronger PORep0605 meet criteria for release; Green Belt assessment under-scores performance of the site; loss of understanding of the impact Mr Sebastian Dixon countryside views; harm to AONB setting; loss of biodiversity and ancient woodland]. that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character.

Classification: OFFICIAL 78 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0606 Object to Option 1 [overdevelopment of Chesham; need for increase in supporting infrastructure; See Volume 1. Mr Roger Perry unproven housing need]. PORep0607 Object to all 15 Options [sufficient brownfield capacity exists in SE England that Green Belt release See Volume 1. Mrs Jane Farley unnecessary; 2015 Conservative election manifesto pledged to protect Green Belt; no exceptional circumstances exist; conflict with purposes of Green Belt; loss of recreation space; risk of setting precedent for future Green Belt release]. PORep0608 Object to Option 7 and 8 [existing permissions at Holy Cross site will create pressure on Currently developments in the Mrs Diane Hollingworth healthcare, schools and parking; NSE site has already seen recent development; impact on traffic Plan Area will contribute to on Denham/Chesham Lane; lack of public transport]. meeting existing need. The potential release of Green Belt sites as part of the new Local Plan will help address future need. PORep0609 Object to Option 1 [increased pollution and traffic; strain on drainage network; pressure on See Volume 1. R Ahmad schools and doctors; no exceptional circumstances]. PORep0610 Object to Option 6 [significant recent development concentrated in Little Chalfont already; lack of See Volume 1. These factors Christine Gibb capacity in road network, parking, schools and medical services; Lodge Lane access is constrained will be determined in greater by railway; harm to setting of AONB; lack of sewage capacity; distance from site to services; detail at a later stage if the proposed density too high; risk of setting a precedent of Green Belt release]. principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0611 Object to Option 1 [proposals lack sustainability; scale of proposed development to great; harm to See Volume 1. The Preferred Mr A.P. Roy infrastructure and service provision; lack of financial details in proposals; lack of capacity in local Options considers the case schools and healthcare; strain on sewage network; environmental harm from increased abstraction; for the principle of Green Belt loss of visual appeal of site; harm to wildlife; increased flood risk; distance from site to train station; release. It is not a detailed increased air pollution from additional traffic; road access is poor; local roads around site lack masterplanning exercise and is capacity; future employment generating sites likely to be elsewhere in the county in response to not intended to facilitate the HS2 and Heathrow expansion]. forecast of costs associated with specific development or mitigation work. These issues and others will be the subject of further work at an appropriate time. The Councils

Classification: OFFICIAL 79 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response will seek to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of employment sites within the plan. PORep0612 Object to Option 1 [loss of agriculture; unsustainable pressure on services from population See Volume 1. Mrs M.B. Cogdell increase; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0613 Object to Option 1 [existing traffic and pollution levels already too high; lack of school places; See Volume 1. Mrs B Sawyer strain on roads and drainage; lack of local healthcare; lack of local employment; loss of agricultural land]. PORep0614 Object to Option 1 [loss of countryside; brownfield land should be used instead of Green Belt; lack See Volume 1. The Councils D Reid of school capacity; lack of parking; local roads around site lack capacity; loss of identity at Lye have commissioned a Green; loss of farmland; harm to wildlife habitat; loss of outdoor recreation space; impact on traffic Landscape Assessment to congestion; lack of capacity in healthcare, water and drainage; level of need is unclear]. establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ setting and character. PORep0615 Object to Option 8 [area should remain Green Belt; loss of recreation space; too many houses in See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Mellor the village; lack of infrastructure; loss of openness]. PORep0616 Object to Option 1 [Green Belt should not be lost; impact on traffic congestion; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs N.M. Perry infrastructure capacity; schools, healthcare and sewage under pressure; Chiltern Society’s proposals are supported]. PORep0617 Object to Option 11 [loss of community amenity space and resultant increase in poor dog See Volume 1. Mrs June Wright behaviour; loss of wildlife habitat; harm to residents’ health and well-being; potential infrastructure failure; impact on road congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to local area].

PORep0618 D Robb Object to Option 6 [access to Village Centre from the option site would be necessary but would Noted. Village Way Residents not be permitted via Village Way). Association PORep0619 Object to Option 11 [fields should be preserved; cumulative impact on top of Pinewood release See Volume 1. Mr David Perkins would be unacceptable; loss of outdoor amenity and recreation space; seems as though SBDC do not care about local residents; Pinewood expansion not excuse to weaken scoring for Iver Heath Fields]. PORep0620 Object to Option 11 [Pinewood expansion increases importance of Iver Heath fields; conflict with See Volume 1.

Classification: OFFICIAL 80 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Ms Annie Warwick Green Belt purposes and Para 81 of NPPF; harm to wildlife; loss of open green space; area performs Green Belt purposes strongly; loss of community amenity; loss of activity space].

PORep0621 It is our view that the two parcels of lands in GKN's control should be identified as preferred See Volume 1. Mrs Jane Leedham location for release from the Green Belt and allocation for development. There are a number of Group Estates Manager factors that support this position: GKN Group Services Ltd 1. The Green Belt Assessment Part 2 suggests that the northern section of the site (reference 4.238) is an inappropriate location for the release of Green Belt as it does not have strong defensible boundaries. This is despite two of the boundaries being formed by a road and the other boundaries being formed by an area of woodland, existing residential development and a strong hedgerow abutting a number of playing fields. There are numerous examples within the Green Belt study of sites with less defensible boundaries coming forward as suggested allocations. The Green Belt Assessment Part 2, was incorrect to dismiss the site on defensible boundary grounds.

2. The southern site (reference 3.07d) has been assessed through the Green Belt Settlement Part 2 and it has been concluded that "exceptional circumstances" do not exist to support its release despite the fact that the land scores strongly in one or more of the Green Belt purposes. The site does, however, adjoin site 3.07c where it has been concluded exceptional circumstances do exist to release the site for development as the site performs a "weak Green Belt function". In our view there are no reasons why similar conclusions should not be reached in respect of site 3.07c and 3.07d on the basis that they adjoin each other and both have strong defensible boundaries.

3. The Green Belt Development Options Appraisal advises that the land to the south of Denham Court Drive (3.07d) should be considered further as part of the Preferred Options consultation. It is, however, missing from the Local Plan Preferred Options consultation. PORep0622 Conditional support for all Options [subject to:- new dwellings being of high quality; brownfield Noted. Mr R Rutter-DaCosta sites being given preference; densities being high to ensure least amount of Green Belt land is developed; minimum space standards adopted; new dwellings are embedded with green/sustainable features]. PORep0623 Object to Option 6 [worsen congestion on the A404; lack of school places; lack of parking; existing See Volume 1. Mrs G.M. Habgood health facilities overstretched]. PORep0624 Land at 46 Wycombe Road, Prestwood (Ref no 4.052) – there are exceptional circumstances to See Volume 1. Mr and Mrs J Palmer remove the area from the Green Belt.

Classification: OFFICIAL 81 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0625 Object to all 15 Options [Green Belt should not be built on; loss of natural environment; brownfield See Volume 1. Anon sites should be used instead; no exceptional circumstances; Green Belt should be protected for future generations]. PORep0626 Object to Option 13 [too far to walk to Iver Village and residents would therefore be car As part of the consultation the Dr John Lees dependant; Decontamination of land would be necessary; Local vehicle traffic would increase; Councils Planning Policy team PORep0627 Relief road 'easier' with other options]. consulted the Councils Mrs Susan Lees Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0628 Object to Option 11 [harm to residential amenity; loss of recreations space; loss of outdoor space; See Volume 1. Mrs Susan Brain change to landscape of Iver Heath; increased traffic movements and pollution; area should be safeguarded for future generations]. PORep0629 Object to Option 8 [loss of valued local amenity; suggestion that area is only semi-rural is See Volume 1. Mr Alexander Duncan misleading; Village Green Space designation should be explored; infrastructure will be pressurised by Holy Cross development; harm to historic character]. PORep0630 Object to Option 7 [boundaries are not defensible; harm to character of the site; no exceptional The Councils consider that the Mrs Carolyn Bradley circumstances; insufficient local infrastructure to support development; site should be used for C2 NSE site is retained in C2 use. uses only; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; development may endanger NSE patients; The release of the site could impact on traffic levels and pollution; distance too great to village centre services; lack of public rationalise the existing transport; brownfield sites to be used instead]. development (which itself is encroachment in the Green Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options

Classification: OFFICIAL 82 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Appraisal document.

PORep0631 Object to Option 6 [change in character of Little Chalfont; village has already had a lot of recent See Volume 1. Mr Brian Burrows development; lack of capacity in village facilities; lack of parking at shops; lack of school places; scale of proposals too great]. PORep0632 Pasture Land off Three Households, Chalfont St Peter – Natural small plot infill site with houses on See Volume 1. Mr Robert Stone 3 sides and golf course behind. Ideas for development in keeping with local housing stock for first time buyers. Would improve outlook on properties overlooking the site and good road access and very low flood risk. PORep0633 Object to Option 6 [need for new homes should not be exploited to excess; future development See Volume 1. T.M. Bradfield should be infill like Donkey Field; lack of parking, school places, healthcare].

PORep0634 Object to Option 6 [loss of ancient woodland; lack of local capacity in schools, healthcare, shops See Volume 1. Frances Mace and employment; lack of space on train services; Little Chalfont has already had more recent development than surrounding settlements]. PORep0635 Object to Option 11 [increase in traffic congestion; alternative Iver sites more suitable; impact on See Volume 1. The Council will Dawn Mills quality of life; lack of hospital capacity; release of Iver Heath fields would represent a broken need to very carefully balance Council promise]. the opportunities to meet housing need across the districts with any potential impact on existing users of each site. PORep0636 Object to Option 7 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; more suitable areas elsewhere in The Councils consider that the Miss Amy Easton the Districts; no exceptional circumstances; conflict with CSP Neighbourhood Plan; site should be NSE site is retained in C2 use. retained for C2 use only]. The release of the site could rationalise the existing development (which itself is encroachment in the Green Belt) as previously developed land in the Green Belt). Releasing the already developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Classification: OFFICIAL 83 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0637 Object to Option 1 [impact on schools, roads and infrastructure in Chesham area]. See Volume 1. Mr Paul Savill PORep0638 Object to Option 6 [harm to character of the village; harm to AONB; lack of capacity in local See Volume 1. Mr Paul Gray schools and healthcare; lack of parking; lack of space on train services; Little Chalfont has already had substantial recent development; potential for damage to community cohesion].

PORep0639 Object to Option 1 [lack of capacity on local road network; lack of capacity on train services; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Mark Ellis-Jones public transport option within Chesham; too few sporting facilities; figure of 1% of Green Belt to be lost is misleading as this is actually a substantial amount of countryside].

PORep0640 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to ancient woodland; lack of detail See Volume 1. Mr John Tranter about infrastructure impacts and mitigations]. PORep0641 Object to Option 6 [services already under pressure from current demand; risk of fundamental See Volume 1. Miss Iris Au change to community; village has had its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity in road network, parking, schools and healthcare]. PORep0642 Object to Option 1 [unproven exceptional circumstances; loss of identity for Lye Green; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs Karen Curtis openness; brownfield sites should be exhausted before any Green Belt release; site is not sustainable as too far from town centre services; lack of capacity on train services; impact on traffic congestion and air pollution; lack of infrastructure capacity; strain on water and sewage network]. PORep0643 Object to Option 6 [risk of enabling urban sprawl and urbanisation; Little Chalfont has had its fair The Preferred Options Mr Brian Lee share of recent development; lack of parking; poor condition of roads; lack of capacity in local considers the case for the healthcare; lack of detail on infrastructure impacts]. principle of Green Belt release. It is not a detailed masterplanning exercise and subsequent work will be needed to establish the need, delivery mechanism and phasing of supporting infrastructure. PORep0644 Object to Option 6 [no exceptional circumstances; area should be added to AONB; Green Belt part See Volume 1. The Part 1 and Mr G.J. Aberson 1 conclusions appear predetermined and incorrect; spatial strategy should not influence an Part 2 Green Belt Assessment Planning Field Officer objective Green Belt assessment; harm to character of Little Chalfont; brownfield capacity unknown will be tested for soundness by

Classification: OFFICIAL 84 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response The Chiltern Society so necessary extent of Green Belt release must be equally unknown without further work; risk of an independent inspector at setting precedent for future changes to the Green Belt; market would deliver high value dwellings the point of the Examination. inconsistent with exceptional circumstances case; constraints in Plan Area could mean Plan is found sound despite OAN remaining unmet; characterisation of Honours Yard site as a ‘Depot’ and ‘urban fringe’ is inaccurate and exceptional circumstances argument is therefore flawed; conflict with Green Belt purposes; Green Belt purposes are performed strongly; harm to AONB and setting of AONB; site is unsustainable; harm to wildlife, biodiversity and protected trees/woodland; proposal contains insufficient analysis of infrastructure impacts and requirements; site too far from village centre]. Object to Option 7 [loss of openness; assessment appears manipulated to produce Council’s desired conclusion; pressure on road network, services and public transport; harm to NSE residents and patients; risk of encroachment and urban sprawl; harm to surrounding wildlife habitats]. Object to Option 8 [loss of openness; Green Belt purposes performed strongly; Green Belt assessment conclusions are flawed; lack of sustainability; harm to wildlife and biodiversity]. PORep0645 Object to Option 6 [data supporting Green Belt assessments contains errors; tone of consultation See Volume 1. The Part 1 and Gerrit Aberson document suggests that central government intervention is the only possible outcome if no Green Part 2 Green Belt Assessment Belt is released; consultation supported in principle though appears tokenistic; harm to ancient will be tested for soundness by woodland, wildlife and biodiversity; harm to AONB; negative economic, social and environmental an independent inspector at impacts; increase in traffic on A404; lack of parking; harm to local businesses; no exceptional the point of the Examination. circumstances; lack of sustainability]. PORep0646 Object to Option 8 [infrastructure at capacity; lack of school places; lack of capacity in local See Volume 1. Mr Bryan Goozee healthcare]. PORep0647 Mr Ivan Duck; Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; Green Belt assessment scores too See Volume 1. PORep0648 Mr Jonathon low; increased urbanisation; Little Chalfont taken more than its fair share of recent development; Duck; PORep0649 Mr lack of parking at shops and station; lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to biodiversity and Christopher Duck; ancient woodland]. PORep0652 Kerry Duck; PORep0918 Mr James Beaney PORep0650 Object to Option 6 [insufficient infrastructure to support scale of development; impact on road See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Ian Warrender traffic; Lodge Lane and Burtons Lane are inappropriate access road; impact on road safety; loss of will seek to protect and open space; harm to business at Honours Yard; harm to wildlife and ancient woodland; harm to enhance employment setting of AONB]. generating sites where appropriate and with landowner support.

Classification: OFFICIAL 85 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0651 Site reference. 4.222 - Land to the North of Howard Crescent, Seer Green] - This site, having an See Volume 1. Bjorn Hall area of 0.79ha abuts the built-up area of Seer Green on its southern boundary, Chalfont Road on The Hall Partnership its eastern boundary, and the built up area on 25% of its western boundary. The sole stated fact that there is currently no defensible boundary to the north and part of the western boundary cannot be accepted as a sound reason for not releasing this parcel of land which abuts the built-up area, for much needed local housing. PORep0653 Object to Option 8 [unproven exceptional circumstances; local schools already overburdened; loss See Volume 1. Doctor Alison Taylor of village green space; loss of rural character; loss of accessible open space]. PORep0654 Object to Option 1 and object to Green Belt Assessment Methodology [need for limited Green Belt See Volume 1. The Part 1 and Mr Nigel Bryatt release accepted; release should prioritise areas of Green Belt with some existing development; the Part 2 Green Belt Assessment boundary test is flawed as it rules-out some areas with development but rules-in areas of will be tested for soundness by openness; Preferred Options need revisiting from this new perspective]. an independent inspector at the point of the Examination. PORep0655 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl; increase in traffic congestion; lack of school places; harm See Volume 1. Miss Jo Bolton to wildlife]. PORep0656 Object to Option 6 [loss of openness; land too open and undeveloped to be released; Little See Volume 1. Mr Michael Rosemeyer Chalfont already had a significant amount of recent development; harm to character of the community; existing infrastructure already under strain; lack of capacity on local road network, parking, schools and healthcare; harm to setting of the AONB; harm to biodiversity and ancient woodland]. PORep0657 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt protection is vital; risk of urban sprawl; loss of openness; significant See Volume 1. Mr Michael Cohn recent development in Little Chalfont already; existing infrastructure already overstretched; lack of capacity in parking, transport, roads, schools and healthcare; impact on A404 traffic; harm to biodiversity and ancient woodland; Green Belt assessment of the area exaggerates urbanising influences]. PORep0658 Object to Option 6 [fundamental change to community character; scale of development See Volume 1. Mr Charles R Hazell disproportionate to size of existing settlement; Little Chalfont taken its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity in local roads, parking, education and healthcare; lack of infrastructure detail in proposal; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly]. PORep0659 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; no exceptional circumstances; Little See Volume 1. The Preferred Mr Stephen Palfreman Chalfont already taken large recent developments; loss of open space; Green Belt conclusions Options considers the case for about parcel are misleading; lack of capacity in current infrastructure; harm to natural environment the principle of Green Belt and wildlife; harm to setting of the AONB]. release. It is not a detailed masterplanning exercise and Classification: OFFICIAL 86 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response subsequent work will be needed to establish the need, delivery mechanism and phasing of supporting infrastructure. PORep0660 Object to Option 9 [harm to town character; strain on town infrastructure; lack of capacity in See Volume 1. Mr Grant Stewart existing schools, roads, shops and healthcare; impact on traffic congestion; 300 dwellings already proposed at Wilton Park the maximum that could be supported]. PORep0661 Land at Grove Farm, Middle Green - In the light of the needs of the area, to follow the National See Volume 1. Mr Lachlan Robertson Planning Policy Framework guidance and following a correction of the Part 2 Green Belt Savills Assessment in respect of our client’s site, we would respectfully request that parcel 4.324A is included within an additional preferred are of land for release from the Green Belt. PORep0662 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl; increase in pollution; no capacity in local healthcare and See Volume 1. Mrs Sarah Furniss schools; traffic already at a standstill]. PORep0663 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposals conflicts with village environment; access to site is See Volume 1. The Preferred Mr Peter Hatchett constrained by narrow or private roads; existing healthcare and education provision insufficient to Options considers the case for support expansion; impact on traffic congestion on A404; lack of parking; lack of capacity on train the principle of Green Belt services; conflict with Green Belt purposes; lack of detail on associated infrastructure release. It is not a detailed improvements; Little Chalfont taken more than its fair share of recent development]. masterplanning exercise and subsequent work will be needed to establish the need, delivery mechanism and phasing of supporting infrastructure. PORep0664 Object to Option 6 [scale of population increase would not be fair to Little Chalfont; Little Chalfont See Volume 1. Mr Michael Mason has had its fair share of recent development; impact on traffic congestion through village centre; lack of parking; lack of capacity in healthcare and schools; harm to community; development conflicts with purposes of AONB and Green Belt]. PORep0665 Object to Options 11 and 12 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of open space; increased See Volume 1. Site-specific Mr Tim Chalklen pressure on local hospitals and schools; existing local road network already at capacity; planners factors, including the impact of are too removed from local community; new settlement would be a better option to meet housing expansion at Pinewood, will be need; loss of community space and recreation space; conflict with para 81 of the NPPF; loss of carefully considered. wildlife; Pinewood expansion will make Iver Heath Fields even more important; existing local services insufficient to support population growth].

Classification: OFFICIAL 87 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0666 Object to Options 7 and 8 [permission already granted for nearly 700 homes in CSP; significant See Volume 1. Mr Andrew Hagger impact on already overstretched school places, social services, medical facilities and other infrastructure; Great Missenden and Gerrards Cross have no sites identified; no information of alternative sources of housing supply; Development should be in areas with adequate transport links]. PORep0667 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont already had more than its fair share of recent development; See Volume 1. Mr Paul Kelly scale of proposal will fundamentally change community; existing infrastructure insufficient; lack of capacity on local roads, in local schools, healthcare and parking; conflict with Green Belt purposes; site is too open for release as per Green Belt assessment methodology]. PORep0668 Object to Option 5 [harm to historic character and setting of Old Town; harm to setting of listed See Volume 1. The Councils Anon buildings; impact on traffic congestion on Whielden Street; harm to rural views and outlook; loss have commissioned a of open fields and wildlife; housing need better met in less sensitive area]. Townscape Character Assessment and a Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ built heritage and character. PORep0669 Support Options 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 [proximity to stations on the Elizabeth Line will enhance Noted. Mr Peter Chapman the district's connectivity to Reading, central London and Essex]. PORep0670 Object to Option 6 [conflict with original purpose of the Green Belt; housing need should be met See Volume 1. Mr Michael Watson via new settlements outside the district; harm to village character; harm to natural environment and wildlife; harm to rural views; local roads lack capacity and increased traffic would be dangerous; many new homes already recently built in the village; Little Chalfont has done its bit]. PORep0671 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- brownfield being prioritised; significant investment Noted. Mrs Kathryn Taylor in Chesham’s infrastructure]. PORep0672 Object to Option 11 [harm to wildlife; loss of community recreation space; impact on traffic; See Volume 1. Miss Katharine Hurden impact of planned major infrastructure works; harm to character of the area]. PORep0673 Object to Option 1 [brownfield options must be fully explored; harm to AONB; harm to wildlife See Volume 1. Ms Susanna Feder habitats; increased traffic and pollution; lack of capacity on Underground services; increased flood risk; area is not sustainable]. PORep0674 Object to Option 6 [existing infrastructure already insufficient; lack of capacity in local healthcare, See Volume 1. Mr Shamoon Karimjee social care, sport and recreation, transport, water and waste and roads].

Classification: OFFICIAL 88 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0675 Mrs Paulis Object to Option 6 [conflict with local and national planning policy; harm to AONB; harm to rural See Volume 1. Quittenton; character and setting of village; development risks overloading local infrastructure, services, PORep0677 Miss Hayley utilities and transport]. Quittenton; PORep0678 Mr James Quittenton; PORep0679 Miss Emma Quittenton PORep0676 Object to Option 9 [disagree with use of Green Belt for housing; loss of recreation and sporting See Volume 1. Mrs Debbie Sutton space; brownfield options should be explored; Beaconsfield should deliver affordable homes instead of million pound mansions]. PORep0680 Object to Options 4, 5 and 6 [harm to each location; impact on traffic congestion; building homes See Volume 1. Mr Andrew Fox creates demand rather than meets demand; housing need unproven; harm to character of the area; harm to AONB]. PORep0682 Conditional support for Option 2, Option 3, Option 4 and Option 5 [subject to:- improvement to Noted. Mr Jools Massey A413 between Amersham and Chalfont St Peter; provision for some self-build plots on each site]. Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- improvements to A355; provision of some self-build plots]. PORep0683 Support all 15 Options [desperate need to increase housing supply; particular need for affordable Noted. Mr Andrew Newton and high density housing; development can provide hook for infrastructure and service investment; opportunity to provide more sheltered community housing; development can be win-win]. PORep0685 Object to Option 6 [Bucks as a whole should have limited development given forthcoming impact See Volume 1. The Councils are Mrs Joan Rosemeyer from HS2; negative impact on traffic congestion in the village; lack of school places and considering the impacts of the healthcare]. various major infrastructure schemes in the District PORep0686 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposed development too great; harm to village character; already See Volume 1. Kate Jones been significant development in recent years; existing services and facilities are overstretched; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare, parking and on road network; risk of setting precedent for further Green Belt release in the future]. PORep0687 Object to Options 11, 12, 13 and 14 [impact on traffic through the Ivers; impact on road safety; See Volume 1. Anneliese Juriansz brownfield sites should be exhausted before developing Green Belt; potential increased flood risk; cumulative impact of construction traffic].

Classification: OFFICIAL 89 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0688 Object to Option 1 [proposed density out of keeping with character of area; shops not needed Volume 1. These factors will be Dr Heather Thornton given existing vacant units; community indoor space needed; impact on traffic congestion, determined in greater detail at especially on White Hill and A413; lack of town centre and station parking; lack of local school a later stage once the principle places; risk of harm to quality of life of existing residents]. and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0689 Object to Option 1 [local roads and access roads to site are constrained, lack capacity and See Volume 1. Mr John Parsons contribute to congestion; Underground services are infrequent and lack capacity; site is too far from town centre for sustainable transport options; Chesham already has air pollution issues; scale of proposal is out of proportion to size of existing town and level of existing services and infrastructure; loss of openness and harm to residential amenity; harm to rural character of the area; harm to wildlife; Japanese Knotweed is present on site; unproven exceptional circumstances; brownfield capacity is sufficient that Green Belt should not be developed]. PORep0690 Object to Option 6 [conflict with national policy and NPPF purposes; unproven exceptional See Volume 1. Mr Terence Glover circumstances; harm to setting of the AONB; harm to ancient woodland and biodiversity; damage to local infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion and pollution; lack of parking and associated loss of retail trade; lack of capacity on train services; lack of station parking; constraints on water supply; Little Chalfont take substantial level of recent development already]. PORep0691 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; Little Chalfont has had more than See Volume 1. Mr Colin Steele its fair share of recent development; harm to character of the village; infrastructure already at capacity; lack of places in schools and healthcare; better development options elsewhere]. PORep0692 Object to Option 2 [loss of distinct Holmer Green identity; lack of school and GP places]. See Volume 1. Dr Gerald Spiller PORep0693 Object to Option 6 [harm to schools, healthcare, parking; lack of capacity on train services]. See Volume 1. Patrcia Goble PORep0694 Object to Option 7 [impact from significant number of existing unbuilt permissions in CSP yet to The Councils consider that the Mrs Madeliene Robey be felt; sites should be proposed in Gerrards Cross and Great Missenden given that they are in NSE site is retained in C2 use. more sustainable locations; site will be car dependant as lack of public transport; proposals need The release of the site could more joined up thinking between different tiers of local government; area should be retained for rationalise the existing future C2 needs only; current Green Belt boundary at Chesham Lane should be preserved]. Object development (which itself is to Option 8 [loss of open fields and recreation area; potential obstruction of the South Bucks way; encroachment in the Green threat to viability of scout camp; loss of amenity; proposed density out of character for the area; Belt) as previously developed harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; creation of new settlements a more sustainable way to meet land in the Green Belt). housing need]. Releasing the already

Classification: OFFICIAL 90 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response developed site from the Green Belt for C2 uses, could allow greater sustainability benefits as outlined in the Green Belt Development Options Appraisal document. PORep0695 Object to Option 2 [loss of separation between Holmer Green and Hazlemere; will lead to sprawl See Volume 1. Ruth Verity of High Wycombe; local roads unsuitable to support development; lack of parking at Turners Place shops; lack of capacity in local doctor surgery]. PORep0697 Object to Option 9 [development should be limited to the existing MOD Wilton Park area; recent See Volume 1. Mrs Gill Poulton densification has led to the town becoming congested; lack of capacity in local schools and healthcare; severe impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; loss of countryside; harm to Old Town Conservation Area]. PORep0698 Object to Option 6 [harm to town character; loss of semi-rural identity; Green Belt should not See Volume 1. Mr Simon Temple contribute to meeting housing need; release risks setting precedent for Green Belt development; loss of openness; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; harm to setting of the AONB; substantial level of recent development already taken place in Little Chalfont; impact on traffic congestion on the A404; lack of parking; CDC should resist central government pressure; CDC and SBDC should merge to release one site for residential development]. PORep0699 Object to Options 7 and 8 [negative impact of overdevelopment; lack of infrastructure capacity; See Volume 1. Dr Michael Bird lack of school places; lack of healthcare capacity; increased traffic congestion; harm to quality of life of existing residents; scale of development out of character with surrounding area; loss of amenity space; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; lack of public transport]. PORep0700 Object to Option 7 and Option 8 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt in NPPF; conflict with CDC’s See Volume 1. Existing Miss Rosie Faunch responsibility to enhance access to Green Belt; development would be car dependent; many permissions across the Plan existing permissions in Chalfont St Peter are yet to be constructed and the impact of these is Area will assist in meeting unknown; better options available elsewhere in District; lack of local school places; local roads current needs. The emerging cannot support growth]. Local Plan must plan to meet future needs to 2036. PORep0701 Object to Option 8 [increased risk to children from additional traffic; risk of conflict between scouts See Volume 1. The Councils Caron Fretten and residents in new houses; loss of rural character; harm to viability of scout camp; harm to have commissioned a 3rd Whitton Scout Group scouting experience]. Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact

Classification: OFFICIAL 91 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ character. PORep0702 Object to Option 8 [no exceptional circumstances; conflict with purpose of Green Belt; substantial See Volume 1. Existing Mr Michael Greaves development already granted permission in CSP at Holy Cross site; existing infrastructure is at permissions across the Plan capacity; increase flood risk; lack of capacity in local schools and healthcare; lack of public Area will assist in meeting transport; impact on traffic congestion; Green Belt assessment incorrectly identifies the land as current needs. The emerging semi-rural; loss of local amenity; loss of recreation space; harm to scouting activities]. Local Plan must plan to meet future needs to 2036. PORep0703 Object to Option 8 [no exceptional circumstances; Green Belt should not be used to resolve See Volume 1. Existing Mr Peter Gourd housing crisis; development options not matched to areas of need; Chalfont St Peter has hundreds permissions across the Plan of permissions not yet built out; lack of school places and healthcare; impact on sewerage system; Area will assist in meeting conclusion of Green Belt assessment is flawed as land is not semi-rural; loss of community amenity current needs. The emerging space; harm to scouting activities]. Local Plan must plan to meet future needs to 2036. PORep0705 Object to Option 1 [Loss of recreational land; Lack of infrastructure; limited public transport; See Volume 1. Ms Helen Porter additional flood risk; distance from site to town centre services; lack of parking; impact on traffic congestion and accidents; increased road safety risk to school children; impact of potential construction traffic; increased air pollution]. PORep0706 Object to Option 1 [harm to character of the town; pressure on infrastructure; increased pollution; See Volume 1. Mrs Kirstie Walker strain on drainage, schools and doctors; no exceptional circumstances; option is unsustainable]. PORep0707 Object to Option 10 [loss of rural village character; loss of outdoor green space; loss of recreation See Volume 1. Miss Lisa Thomas space; risk of urban sprawl and coalescence with Uxbridge; lack of capacity and resilience on local roads; impact on air pollution; lack of local school places; lack of local healthcare capacity; emotionally damaging for existing residents]. PORep0708 Object to Option 6 [harm to character of village; massive strain on all services; lack of space in See Volume 1. Mr John Campbell schools, healthcare and parking; risk of setting precedent for developing Green Belt]. PORep0709 Mrs Sandra Campbell PORep0710 I have received the information re: the following plans re: the building of new homes in Little See Volume 1. Ms Karen Mycock Chalfont. MY ANSWER TO THIS IS NO. I wish to save the land and keep it as it is and not spoil our beautiful countryside.

Classification: OFFICIAL 92 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0711 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt assessment contains fundamental errors; conflict with purposes of See Volume 1. The Green Belt Dr Vivek Tandon the Green Belt; loss of openness; no exceptional circumstances; housing targets are overinflated; assessment methodology and PORep0712 affordable housing will be difficult to fund; A404 has no spare capacity; lack of public transport; conclusions will be tested for Mrs Anusha Tandon negative environmental impact; loss of amenity space for residents; loss of flora and fauna; harm soundness as part of the to setting of the AONB; proposals are not sustainable; harm to synergy of local community; Little independent inspection of the Chalfont is already overdeveloped]. full Draft Plan when it is submitted to the Secretary of State. PORep0713 Object to Option 1 [harm to AONB from development itself and supporting infrastructure; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Gillian Harborne local school places; affordable housing exploited by investors; services already overstretched].

PORep0714 Object to Option 6 [scale of development out of proportion to existing size of village; See Volume 1. Mrs Marion Smart encroachment onto countryside; lack of capacity in parking, local schools and healthcare; insufficient local roads; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife habitats; loss of character and harm to community]. PORep0717 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; risk of urban sprawl; increased traffic congestion; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Jerry Harborne parking; increased air pollution; lack of capacity at train station; strain on sewage and drainage systems; lack of school places; extra burden on local healthcare]. PORep0718 Object to Option 9 [harm to Chilterns AONB; risk of setting dangerous precedent; harm to setting See Volume 1. Ms Clodagh Ward and character of Beaconsfield Old Town; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; lack of capacity on local roads; lack of school and healthcare places; more details on infrastructure are needed]. PORep0719 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment in Little Chalfont; lack of capacity in local schools, See Volume 1. Mrs Marion Nichols healthcare, roads and public transport; lack of parking; substantial recent development in Little Chalfont already; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife habitats]. PORep0720 I am totally opposed to further building in this area as the previously agreed green-belt should be Noted. See Volume 1. Father Kenneth Payne respected. However, reluctantly, as a compromise suggestion, a small number, not more than 300 dwellings could be allowed for in the proposed area. PORep0722 Object to Option 6 [risk of setting precedent for developing Green Belt; harm to visitor numbers See Volume 1. Jane Jones and attractiveness of area; Little Chalfont already absorbed disproportionate level of recent development; A404 is a bottleneck and cannot support further growth; harm to setting of AONB; loss of wildlife habitats; harm to ancient woodland; site being deliberately run down to secure development; loss of amenity space; lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to community character].

Classification: OFFICIAL 93 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0723 Object to Option 6 [harm to tourism; cumulative impact from HS2; lack of public transport; See Volume 1. Mrs Janice Lee inadequate local roads; harm to watercourses; distance from site to services and train station; Little Chalfont has already absorbed substantial recent development; lack of parking; harm to retailers viability; lack of capacity in local schools, healthcare and public transport]. PORep0724 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl; development should be spread round the UK away from See Volume 1. Support of Mrs Julia Dale the South East; loss of farmland; flooding issues where Lycrome Rd and Lye Green Rd meet; Chiltern Society noted. distance from site to town centre; impact on traffic congestion; increased air pollution; lack of parking; lack of school places; lack of healthcare capacity; Chiltern Society’s proposals should be considered as alternative]. PORep0725 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be developed; harm to wildlife; risk of setting precedent See Volume 1. Linda de Gruchy for Green Belt development; permanent change to community; insufficient infrastructure]. PORep0726 Object to Option 11 [performs Green Belt purposes strongly; loss of recreation space; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs Elizabeth Moore wildlife; loss of community amenity space; loss of openness; importance of site increased by Pinewood expansion]. PORep0727 Land at Dodds Lane and Stratton Chase Drive, Chalfont St Giles (Ref no 4.149) - Following the See Volume 1. Chris Pittock Green Belt review the reasoned justification appears to still be in place but the Council has Spenthorpe on behalf of discounted the land. Notwithstanding, and for the reasons stated above, NKH wishes to maintain Nicholas King Homes its representations in promoting the removal of this land from the Green Belt and on this basis objects to the Council’s currently intended approach of maintaining its inclusion within the wider Green Belt. PORep0728 Object to Option 1 [disproportionate level of development proposed at Chesham; risk of urban See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Kalpa Morjaria sprawl and loss of Lye Green’s identity; development should be concentrated at major regional must plan to meet their needs PORep0729 centres like Wycombe, Uxbridge and Slough; area performs Green Belt purposes strongly; harm to as far as possible within the Mr Hamish Morjaria wildlife and ecology; impact on traffic congestion in Chesham; decrease in road safety and Districts and cannot unilaterally pedestrian safety; increased stress on sewage and drainage; increased flood risk; locals schools and plan to meet these needs healthcare at capacity; train services at capacity; lack of town centre parking; increase air pollution; externally. distance from site to town centre will mean reliance on car transport; option is not sustainable]. PORep0730 Object to Option 6 [harm to environment; loss of wildlife habitat; increased crowding in the village; See Volume 1. Mr Jamie Wright risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development]. PORep0731 This is a beautiful part of the countryside & for sure would change the environment within the See Volume 1. Mr Russell Goodkind surrounding areas. PORep0732 This is Green Belt land it safeguards the countryside from encroachment, it should not violate the See Volume 1. Mr Richard Kent National planning policy framework green belt purpose. There are two ancient wood lands here too, these need to be protected.

Classification: OFFICIAL 94 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0733 Object to Option 1 [harm to Green Belt; unproven exceptional circumstances; conflict with Green As part of the consultation the Mr David Lansdowne Belt purposes; long distance from site to town centre; loss of arable farmland; loss of biodiversity; Councils Planning Policy team increase in traffic congestion and pollution; increased risk of sewage spillover into the River Chess; consulted the Councils potential flood risk; insufficient train services; lack of parking; lack of capacity in local schools and Environmental Health team to healthcare; infrastructure cost could be unviable; harm to wildlife; presence of Japanese Knotweed determine whether any of the at site; potential contamination from former brickworks; brownfield land should be used before options identified have land Green Belt is developed]. contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0734 Object to Option 9 [relief road will be in the wrong location to support growth; recent piecemeal See Volume 1. The alignment Mr Robert Graeme Richards development has not heeded residents’ concerns; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school of the proposed Beaconsfield places and medical services; unproven employment need in Beaconsfield; Beaconsfield could not relief road will be determined provide affordable housing; lack of infrastructure planning in the proposals]. by County Council in their capacity as Highways Authority. The District Councils are liaising closely with the County during this process to ensure the final approved scheme reflects and supports the growth needs of Beaconsfield. PORep0735 Object to Option 6 [there is no legislative basis for Green Belt release; poor strategic approach to The National Planning Policy Mr Trevor Knight meeting development need at a regional scale; Green Belt assessment scores site incorrectly; risk Framework establishes that of setting precedent for Green Belt development; harm to community coherence; lack of capacity Green Belt boundaries can be of local roads, transport, education, wildlife habitats and health]. altered through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. The Green Belt Assessment and its conclusions will be tested for soundness along with the full Draft Plan by an independent inspector when it is submitted to the Secretary of State. Classification: OFFICIAL 95 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0736 Object to Option 6 [releasing green belt land for housing need sets a dangerous precedent; the Green Belt assessment is a Mr Graeme Nation site’s green belt merit has been scored too low in the evidence documents; impact on village technical exercise. Where the infrastructure and amenities]. conclusion of the assessment supports release of a particular site the factors leading to that conclusion will be unique to each site. Green Belt release does not set a precedent in planning terms for further release at a later date. Green Belt boundaries can only be altered as part of the preparation of a new Local Plan. Any future release must have regard to the evidence at the time of each assessment. PORep0737 Land at Penn Wood House, Beamond End Lane, Amersham - The site is situated in a sustainable See Volume 1. Ms Irum Kahn-Williams location, close to the main road network, with the A404 to the south. The built up area comprising IQ Planning Consultants on Holmer Green is sited a short distance to the north west of the site, by 0.6km. There is no recent behalf of Charles Derek planning history. There are no covenants or public rights of way attached to the land. The number Hollamby of houses/units the site could deliver is estimated to be 10-20, although this would be negotiable at the time of a planning application. Whilst the site is not situated in a recommended area of search, and has not been taken forwards in terms of the Draft Green Belt Assessment Part 2, it would still be capable of delivering sustainable residential development, given its close proximity to the built up area of Holmer Green, and accessibility by public transport and the road network. PORep0738 General objection [road system would be overloaded by additional traffic; impact on pollution]. See Volume 1. Mr Dave Fuller PORep0739 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; risk of urban sprawl; conflict with purpose of Green Belt; See Volume 1. Mr David Martin brownfield sites are available as an alternative to Green Belt development; disproportionate number of houses proposed for Chesham in relation to the rest of the Plan Area; impact on traffic congestion, pollution, sewage network; lack of capacity in schools and healthcare; long distance from site to town centre and train station]. PORep0740 Object to Option 15 [site provides gap between Maidenhead and Taplow/Slough; surplus office See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Roger Worthington space in Maidenhead makes additional office space unnecessary at Taplow; site should be must anticipate needs over the Classification: OFFICIAL 96 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Hitcham & Taplow Soc. safeguarded for Crossrail parking]. Plan Period. Evidence suggests that as increasing amounts of office space are lost to Permitted Development over the Plan Period it will be necessary to plan to deliver more office facilities. PORep0741 General comments [support decision not to include options in Gerrards Cross among Preferred Noted. See Volume 1. Sue Moffat Options]. Object to all 15 options [object to principle of Green Belt loss; risk of urban sprawl; Town Clerk pressure by extension on Gerrards Cross infrastructure]. Object to Options 7 and 8 [will place Gerrards Cross Town additional pressure on Gerrards Cross medical facilities, schools, roads and parking; updated Council HEDNA now reflects reduced housing need; impact of Brexit on housing need not yet known; brownfield should be exhausted before developing Green Belt]. PORep0742 Object to Option 6 [loss of Green Belt; harm to wildlife; change to character; Little Chalfont has See Volume 1. Mrs Anne Lovegrove already taken its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity in road network, parking, schools and healthcare; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0743 Object to Option 10 [office development not needed at this location; harm to character of the See Volume 1. The Councils Mr John Coleman area; harm to Buckinghamshire Gold Club attractiveness; coalescence of Denham and New must anticipate needs over the Parish Clerk Denham; inconsistency between HELAA site assessment and Green Belt assessment; infrastructure Plan Period. Evidence suggests Denham Parish Council and local road network insufficient to support growth; impact on traffic congestion; unknown that as increasing amounts of impact on office demand following Brexit vote; Local Plan preparation unnecessary in the context office space are lost to of the forthcoming switch to unitary government and subsequent change in policy environment]. Permitted Development over the Plan Period it will be necessary to plan to deliver more office facilities. PORep0744 Object to Option 6 [over-urbanisation; harm to nature of the community; Little Chalfont has had its See Volume 1. Mr G Bigby fair share of recent development; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; Green Belt PORep0746 assessment scores site too low; risk of setting a precedent for Green Belt development; pressure Sue Bigby on roads, parking, education and health facilities; lack of detail on infrastructure in proposals; harm to biodiversity; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife habitats]. PORep0745 Object to Option 1 [Green Belt should not be built on; harm to quality of life of existing residents; See Volume 1. Ms Amber Tokeley development should be focussed on unused brownfield land; loss of openness; risk of creating urban sprawl; disproportionate concentration of development in Chesham; loss of farmland; harm to environment; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; increase in pollution; lack of capacity

Classification: OFFICIAL 97 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response in healthcare and education; strain on sewage and drainage]. PORep0747 Object to Option 1 [loss of farm land; loss of buffer between town and countryside; pressure on As part of the consultation the Mr Richard Morris infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; potential site contamination from previous uses; Councils Planning Policy team cumulative impact of HS2; risk of urban sprawl and loss of identity of Lye Green; lack of capacity in consulted the Councils’ the road network; further testing of infrastructure capacity should be compelted before any land is Environmental Health team to released; lack of capacity in local schools, doctors and utilities]. determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep0748 Object to Option 15 [Crossrail upgrade will bring an increase in station users so the land at Option The Councils must anticipate Eva and Max Lipman 15 should be safeguarded for additional parking; conflict with Green Belt purposes; spare office needs over the Plan Period. capacity in Maidenhead negates need for office development at Taplow]. Evidence suggests that as increasing amounts of office space are lost to Permitted Development over the Plan Period it will be necessary to plan to deliver more office facilities. PORep0749 As a neighbouring authority of Chiltern and South Bucks Districts, we very much welcome the Noted. The Councils’ will Miss Aude Pantel progress that we have been making on addressing strategic issues between our authorities. Where continue to work closely with Planning Policy Officer we are doing joint working, we are keen to ensure that we work following common Wycombe District Council on Wycombe District Council methodologies. As our respective authorities are preparing for their plan's publication stage, we cross-boundary issues as part would like to work with you towards an agreed Memorandum of Understanding of the Duty to Co-operate. The • We welcome the identification of strategic Green Belt preferred options for meeting your Councils at this stage housing and economic development needs, including for the provision of Gypsies and Travellers' recognise the impact that the accommodation. proposals within Wycombe • We note that you are proposing to explore meeting your need for Gypsies and Travellers District have on options within accommodation on some of the sites, not on all. It would be helpful to understand your site Chiltern District and will factor selection process. We would want confirmation that you are looking to meet your need in full these in when reviewing within Chiltern and South Bucks Districts in relation to Gypsies and Travellers (including options further. The Councils non-travelling travellers). welcome the opportunity to • We support the identification of the site adjacent to Tralee Farm called "Preferred Option 2: Area enter into a joint-working Classification: OFFICIAL 98 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response South of Holmer Green" and confirm the need for joint working on this site. We believe there arrangement on Option 2. would be value in preparing a joint development brief for these adjoining areas in Wycombe and The Councils welcome more Chiltern Districts, should they both proceed through their plan-making processes. detailed discussions on the • We confirm that we are not proposing to take the Penn Road site forward as we believe that it matters raised following the would represent major development in the AONB. We note that at this stage, you are not end of consultation. suggesting that, in the event where we are not taking the Penn Road site forward, you would reconsider whether to take Preferred Option 3 •Comments with regards to the Green Belt Assessment part 2 are being provided separately and we welcome further discussions on finalising the methodology. PORep0750 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes and principles; risk of sprawl into See Volume 1. Mrs Anne Campbell Chorleywood; harm to ancient woodland and wildlife; Little Chalfont already taken its fair share of recent development; infrastructure at capacity; lack of parking; lack of school places; impact on traffic; pressure on healthcare]. PORep0751 Object to Option 7 [loss of countryside; increase in pollution; development pressure too See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Jill Cumberworth concentrated in South East England; development should be better distributed round the country; must plan to meet their impact on traffic congestion; impact on conditions of the roads; lack of school and healthcare objectively assessed needs capacity; existing housing stock should be better used; harm to quality of life]. within the Districts as far as possible. PORep0752 Object to Option 1 [existing traffic congestion and associated pollution must be addressed before See Volume 1. Mr John Chambers further development of Chesham]. PORep0753 Object to Option 1 [conflict with National Planning Policy; no exceptional circumstances]. See Volume 1. Mr Stephen Wildman PORep0754 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be sacrificed to meet housing need; housing need not See Volume 1. Mr Tim Stickland an exceptional circumstance; scale of proposal disproportionately large; lack of capacity in existing PORep0756 infrastructure; harm to setting of AONB; conflict with NPPF and Green Belt assessment criteria; lack Mrs Linda Stickland of school places; distance from site to nearest A&E services; lack of public transport; lack of parking; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. PORep0757 Object to Option 7 [lack of public transport; insufficient GP access; impact on traffic; lack of school Unknown places; other areas of the District are more suitable for development, especially near train stations]. PORep0758 Object to Option 11 [risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; impact of Pinewood See Volume 1. Mrs Claire Mowat makes the fields even more important; loss of community amenity; loss of natural screening for existing dwellings from M25; loss of open green space]. Object to Option 12 [impact on traffic congestion; lack of public transport; cumulative pressure of HS2, infrastructure projects and Heathrow expansion].

Classification: OFFICIAL 99 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0759 Object to Option 8 [loss of recreation space; loss of rural character; potential to compromise See Volume 1. Mrs Alison Ingham children’s safety; harm to residential amenity from site activities]. 1st Longwick Scout Group PORep0760 Object to Option 11 [land performs Green Belt purposes strongly; loss of recreation space; loss of See Volume 1. Mr Derek Parsons community amenity; loss of openness; site even more important following Pinewood expansion]. PORep0762 Object to Option 6 [harm to local community; Green Belt must be protected for future See Volume 1. Mrs M. Lynn Woodward generations; change in character of village; local roads and parking already under stress]. PORep0765 Object to Option 11 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; lack of supporting infrastructure; See Volume 1. Mrs Sharon Parsons impact on traffic congestion; SBDC have previously recognised the Green Belt merit of the site in objections to Pinewood expansion; loss of outdoor recreation space; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of visual amenity; loss of biodiversity]. PORep0766 Object to Option 6 [housing need not an exceptional circumstance; brownfield sites should be See Volume 1. Mr Matthew Jennings exhausted first; harm to setting of AONB; access from Lodge Lane would be constrained; lack of capacity on the local road network; lack of local transport options; loss of wildlife habitat; lack of infrastructure detail in proposals; harm to biodiversity; Green Belt assessment scores site too low; conflict with Green Belt assessment criteria on openness; harm to character of village; harm to ancient woodland; Little Chalfont has already taken its fair share of recent development]. PORep0767 Object to Option 6 [village has already seen substantial recent development; local roads are See Volume 1. Dr John Pentney narrow and dangerous; loss of ancient woodland; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; harm to wildlife; lack of parking; rail services lack extra capacity; lack of school places and healthcare]. PORep0768 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure; roads, parking, education and health facilities already See Volume 1. Mr Paul Covell under stress and could not support large new estates]. PORep0769 Object to Option 6 [land strongly performs Green Belt purposes; Green Belt assessment score is See Volume 1. Mrs Dawn Hunter too low; harm to the community; Little Chalfont already had a significant amount of recent development; impact on condition of local roads; increased traffic; insufficient parking; lack of capacity in health and education; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife habitat]. PORep0770 Neutral comment [Green Belt development should be concentrated on as few strategic options as See Volume 1. Mr Harry Manisty possible to ensure impact is concentrated and that enabling infrastructure can be delivered coherently; small plots should not be considered for release to avoid a piecemeal process and prevent a precedent being set]. PORep0771 Object to Option 1 [increased traffic levels; increased pollution; extra pressure on limited parking; See Volume 1. Mr Huw Lloyd Jones strain on sewage and drainage; add to burden on local schools and healthcare; harm to wildlife; harm to environment].

Classification: OFFICIAL 100 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0772 Object to Option 3 [harm to AONB; harm to setting of AONB; release of Chiltern DC half of the See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Robert Crowe option is unviable now Wycombe DC are not pursuing release of their half; Conflict with Green Belt will carefully consider how PORep0983 purposes; lack of exceptional circumstances; harm to safety of bridle paths; proposed development neighbouring authorities’ own Anon would constitute major development in the Green Belt; conflict with Core Strategy policies on emerging Local Plans may protecting AONB and setting of AONB; impact the Chiltern and South Bucks Joint Local Plan. PORep0773 Object to all Preferred Options [opposed to development in the Green Belt; brownfield options to See Volume 1. Mr Lee Sanderson be exhausted; unmet need should be met in other Districts; development should only be for affordable and key worker housing]. PORep0775 Object to Option 4 and Option 5 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to heritage and See Volume 1. Mrs Rachel Rowland character of Amersham Old Town; harm to tourism; impact on traffic; harm to setting of Bury Farm; harm to setting and views over the Old Town; harm to emergency hospital access; HS2 vent shaft construction might constrain site access; proposed site is very steep; small development potential not worth the cost to the town; the option at Quill Hall Farm should be revisited as it is more appropriate for development]. PORep0776 Object to Option 6 [loss of openness; loss of Green Belt; morally indefensible to harm area for See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Caroline Stephens future generations; loss of recreation space; harm to village character; affordable housing must plan to meet their unachievable in the area; Little Chalfont already absorbed significant recent development; impact development needs as far as on traffic congestion; lack of parking; lack of school places; lack of capacity on train services; recent possible within the Districts. By sale of farmland on perimeter of proposed option is suspicious; development should be focussed doing so a pipeline of supply is elsewhere in the District and further north along the HS2 route; brownfield development should be established which will help prioritised]. ensure future generations continue to be able to live in the area if they choose to do so. PORep0778 Object to Option 1 [increased gridlock in Chesham; impact on traffic from development at former See Volume 1. Ms Ann Goldstein college site already significant; lack of school places and healthcare capacity; existing constraints should be addressed before adding more housing; Green Belt land should not be used for housing; lack of communication from Council on the consultation; 5 week consultation period not long enough]. PORep0779 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont will not be able to absorb the extra traffic; A404 already See Volume 1. Dr Claire Sweeney struggling to cope with the volume of cars at peak times].

Classification: OFFICIAL 101 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0780 General comment [15 preferred options not evenly distributed across plan area]. Object to Options See Volume 1. Support noted. Mrs Jane Giorgi 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 [lack of spare capacity in services and infrastructure; insufficient medical services; waste water network at capacity; lack of public transport; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; harm to environment; increased air pollution; loss of open space and recreation space; increased flood risk; cumulative impact from HS2 construction work]. Support Options 1, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 [best served by public transport; better fit with spatial strategy]. PORep0781 Option 1 - North East of Chesham. Waste Water Network: Noted. The Councils will Mr Richard Hill The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand continue to liaise with all Head of Property anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to infrastructure providers as the Thames Water ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a Local Plan progresses in order wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and to identify potential obstacles provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is to development generally (not required, where, when and how it will be delivered. just Green Belt Options) and Waste Water Treatment: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area may be where necessary seek unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Minor infrastructure upgrades mitigation by way of developer maybe required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. contributions where required. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the sewage treatment infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: Sewage Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. Option 10 - Land north of Denham Roundabout Waste Water Network: Due to the complexities of wastewater networks the level of information contained in this document does not allow Thames Water to make a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed housing provision will have on the wastewater infrastructure. To enable us to provide more specific comments on the site proposals we require details of the Local Authority's aspiration for each site. For example, an indication of the location, type and scale of development together with the anticipated timing of development. Option 11 - Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood. Waste Water Network: Due to the complexities of wastewater networks the level of information contained in this document does not allow Thames Water to make a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed housing provision will have on the wastewater infrastructure. To enable us to provide more specific comments on the site proposals we require details of the Local Authority’s aspiration for each site. For example, an indication of the location, type and scale of development together with the anticipated timing of development This site needs to be considered in conjunction with Option 12 and its cumulative impact. Option 12 - Area Classification: OFFICIAL 102 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response West of Iver Heath. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered. Option 13 - Area North of Iver Station. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure are may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. Option 14 - Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver Waste Water Network: Due to the complexities of wastewater networks the level of information contained in this document does not allow Thames Water to make a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed housing provision will have on the wastewater infrastructure. To enable us to provide more specific comments on the site proposals we require details of the Local Authority’s aspiration for each site. For example, an indication of the location, type and scale of development together with the anticipated timing of development. Option 15 - Area Adjacent to Taplow Station Water Comments: On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site. Waste Water Network: Due to the complexities of wastewater networks the level of information contained in this document does not allow Thames Water to make a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed housing provision will have on the wastewater infrastructure. To enable us to provide more specific comments on the site proposals we require details of the Local Authority’s aspiration for each site. For example, an indication of the location, type and scale of development together with the anticipated timing of development. Waste Water Treatment: Need more information to understand the impact at the STW. Option 2 - Area South of Holmer Green Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure are may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed Classification: OFFICIAL 103 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 3 - Land East of Hazlemere. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure are may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. Waste Water Treatment: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Minor infrastructure upgrades maybe required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the sewage treatment infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: Sewage Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. Option 4 - Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town. Waste Water Network: On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site. There are sewers crossing this site. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 5 - Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town. Waste Water Network: On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site. There are sewers crossing this site. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 6 - South East of Little Chalfont. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure are may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application Where development is being proposed within 15m of a Classification: OFFICIAL 104 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response pumping station, the developer or local authority should liaise with Thames Water to consider whether an odour and / or noise and / or vibration impact assessment is required as part of the promotion of the site and potential planning application submission. Any impact assessment would determine whether the proposed development would result in adverse amenity impact for new occupiers, as those new occupiers would be located in close proximity to a pumping station. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 7 - National Society for Epilepsy, Chalfont Centre, Gerrards Cross. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure are may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 8 - Area South East of Chalfont St Peter. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered. Waste Water Treatment: With current forecasts, Maple Lodge should have sufficient capacity to accommodate this site. Option 9 - Area East of Beaconsfield. Waste Water Network: The wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Strategic drainage infrastructure is likely to be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a wastewater network capacity constraint the developer should liaise with Thames Water and provide a detailed drainage strategy with the planning application, informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered. Waste Water Treatment: Infrastructure at the wastewater treatment works in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Minor infrastructure upgrades maybe required to ensure sufficient treatment capacity is available to serve this development. Thames Water would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Local Planning Authority and the developer to better understand and effectively plan for the sewage treatment Classification: OFFICIAL 105 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response infrastructure needs required to serve this development. It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. For example: Sewage Treatment Works upgrades can take 18 months to 3 years to design and build. PORep0782 Object to Option 1 [Chesham’s topography imposes unique constraints; Preferred Options Noted. The Councils will Mr Tony Molesworth consultation should have consulted on a greater number of sites; spatial strategy work and consider the representations Chairman infrastructure delivery schedule unfinished so housing numbers should not yet be estimated for made by the Chesham Society. Chesham Society each option; exceptional circumstances unproven; full draft plan had been expected at this stage The Councils must test all rather than GB Preferred Options consultation; multiple iterations of assessment methodology reasonable options available to case doubt on the objectiveness of the conclusions; capacity from brownfield sites outlined in the them and have carried out an HELAA is underestimated and would remove need for Green Belt release; steep hill and distance assessment of sites within the from town centre make walking/cycling unlikely; additional traffic generated would worsen built-up area through the draft congestion and air pollution; lack of public transport in Chesham; lack of parking at train station; Housing and Economic Land limited capacity of Underground services; sewage treatment works already close to capacity; Availability Assessment. surface water flooding risk would increase; costs and funding unknown; unknown proposals for The Councils will also welcome meeting future employment need; isolated and peripheral development could not be sustainable]. further information on the likely infrastructure impacts of the proposals put forward and also the achievability and viability of the scheme. PORep0783 Object to Option 6 [distance from site to services; increased pressure on roads and parking; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Valerie Hamilton capacity in healthcare and local schools; risk of urban sprawl; harm to village character; loss of open green space; lack of capacity on train services]. PORep0784 Object to Option 6 [negative impact on the community; Little Chalfont had its fair share of recent See Volume 1. Mrs M.J. Brown development; no spare capacity in healthcare, schools, roads or parking; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of countryside; risk of urban sprawl]. PORep0785 Conditional support for Option 1 [subject to:- incorporation of sustainable features throughout Noted. Mr Richard De'Arth new development; a focus on making any development eco-friendly; extensive incorporation of SuDS]. PORep0786 Neutral comment on Option 1 [any development should include measures to promote equestrian Noted. Jo Shaw road safety along Lycrome Road]. PORep0787 Object to Option 6 [loss of Green Belt; increase in traffic; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Penny Mitchell parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0788 Object to Options 4 and 5 [cost outweighs benefit; infrastructure cannot support expansion; harm See Volume 1. Mrs Sarah-Jane Sanders to historic setting and character of Amersham Old Town; harm to views over the Old Town; harm

Classification: OFFICIAL 106 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response to rural setting; potential loss of existing footpaths and amenity space; loss of attractiveness of Old Town; impact on traffic congestion; further pressure on parking near hospital; loss of green space; conflict with Green Belt purpose to protect setting of historic towns]. PORep0790 Object to Option 6 [loss of openness; harm to setting of the AONB; harm to ancient woodland; See Volume 1. John Curtis conflict with Green Belt purposes; Green Belt assessment scores site too low; Little Chalfont has already absorbed more recent development than surrounding areas; harm to village character; impact on traffic congestion; lack of capacity on Tube services; parking, schools and GP surgery already at capacity; inadequate utilities to support expansion; harm to wildlife; risk of setting precedent for Green Belt development; brownfield land and sites outside the District should be exhausted before Green Belt]. PORep0791 Object to Option 6 [site is mostly open and rural; surrounding roads are narrow and contrained; See Volume 1. Mrs Sarah Curtis harm to ecology and wildlife habitats; lack of parking; lack of capacity on train services; lack of spare capacity in healthcare, waste water system and roads; harm to village character; loss of rural identity; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; loss of rural setting]. PORep0792 Object to Option 11 [Pinewood expansion should not be used to justify release of Iver Heath fields; See Volume 1. Mrs Denise Clark SBDC purchased fields to protect them from development; loss of amenity space; loss of recreation space; harm to community activities]. PORep0793 Object to Option 6 [option performs Green Belt purposes strongly; scale of proposal too great; See Volume 1. Mr Peter Brown Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of recent development; local roads inadequate; lack of parking; lack of capacity in schools and healthcare; lack of space on train services]. PORep0795 Object to Option 8 [increase in traffic; increased safety risk for scout camp users; potential for See Volume 1. Mr Ian Hardy conflict between camp users and new residents; harm to viability of scout camp; harm to scout Richmond upon Thames camp experience; loss of rural character]. District Scouts PORep0796 Object to Option 7 and 8 [existing permissions yet to be built out and their impact not yet known; See Volume 1. Mr Martyn Gravestock insufficient local infrastructure; housing need should be better spread across district; Green Belt assessment scored sites too low; potential conflict with the CSP Neighbourhood Plan; Epilepsy site should be retained to provide future medical and amenity facilities; potential harm to viability of Paccar scout camp; loss of amenity space]. PORep0797 Object to Options 4 and 5 [land at Quill Hall Lane would be more appropriate for release; See Volume 1. Mr David Hanrahan Whielden St options too steep to develop; harm to setting of Amersham Old Town; impact on traffic and parking problems in Old Town; HS2 access shaft at Whielden Street already threatens increase in heavy traffic; cumulative impact should be considered].

Classification: OFFICIAL 107 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0798 Object to Option 8 [loss of Green Belt; loss of rural character; harm to safeguarding of camp users; See Volume 1. Mr Duncan Wakeling site’s importance increases if HS2 closes Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre; close proximity of houses to camp site may cause conflict with new residents; harm to viability of scout camp]. PORep0799 Object to Option 9 [existing infrastructure at capacity; lack of school places; traffic conditions are See Volume 1. Mr Ian Stuart poor; harm to environment; damage to town character; harm to Green Belt; loss of ancient woodland]. PORep0800 Object to Option 2 [loss of wildlife habitat; harm to AONB; disruption to village community; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Russell Shea capacity on local roads; lack of capacity in local schools and healthcare]. PORep0801 Object to Option 5 [harm to fabric of Amersham Old Town; harm to listed buildings; increased See Volume 1. Mr David Wright traffic]. PORep0802 Object to Option 8 [development at Winkers site could cause friction between Scout groups and See Volume 1. Mr Dave Dryden new residents due to noise, campfires etc; development could constrain scope of Scouting Belchamps Scout Activity activities; development may necessitate a Deed of Easement with neighbours]. Centre PORep0803 Object to Option 6 [site meets Green Belt purposes; Green Belt assessment score is too low; Green See Volume 1. Mr Jon Fantes Belt should not be used for housing; Little Chalfont has seen a great deal of recent development; PORep0804 community character would be changed; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking, school Mrs Hana Fantes places, healthcare capacity and public transport facilities]. PORep0805 Mr Richard Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- infrastructure improvements; more parking; See Volume 1. Roy; enhancement of sporting facilities; provision of more school places; development to be PORep0882 Mr & Mrs infrastructure-led and guided by a masterplan; provision of traffic relief; provision of additional Davies; healthcare capacity; provision of key worker affordable housing; exclusion of gypsy and traveller PORep0889 Mr Benedict pitches; reconsideration of meeting some need on land between A40 and M40]. Casemore; PORep0929 Mr Michael Reyner; PORep0990 Sharon Duncalf PORep0806 Object to Option 6 [overpopulation; harm to character of the area; increased pressure on health See Volume 1. Helen King facilities and too great a distance to nearest hospitals; impact on transport network; lack of capacity on local road network; lack of capacity on trains; increased pollution from additional vehicle movements; lack of parking; lack of local school places; site of Option 6 would be better used for a new school or doctor’s surgery along with recreational facilities].

Classification: OFFICIAL 108 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0807 Object to Options 7 and 8 [flawed Green Belt assessment conclusion; harm to rural character; See Volume 1. Mrs Sheena McCormick release would be inconsistent with rejection of previous applications on Green Belt grounds; loss of recreation space; Chalfont St Peter already taken significant recent development at Holy Cross site; pressure on infrastructure and services; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking]. PORep0808 Object to Option 6 [proposed scale too great; impact on levels of traffic on A404; lack of parking]. See Volume 1. Mr Michael Thompson PORep0809 Land at Amersham Cricket Club. The suggestion to move to a larger ground, and include an Indoor See Volume 1. Mr Ian Telford Sports Centre was first put forward to Chiltern DC in the "Call for Sites" Consultation for 6th March Amersham Cricket Club 2015. Our ground is noted as Site CD 0172 in the Draft HELAA of January 2016; but this does not refer to our proposals being part of a wider mixed use proposal, with new housing and much improved and needed sporting facilities a short distance away at Betjeman Park HP6 6JQ. PORep0810 Object to Option 1 [many brownfield sites available as alternative; sewage works at capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Isabel Owens pressure on potable water supply; increase in traffic congestion and air pollution; lack of school capacity; lack of healthcare capacity; topography of Chesham makes major development impractical; harm to wildlife; potential for flooding; loss of farmland]. PORep0811 Object to Option 1 [insufficient local infrastructure; roads already gridlocked; site is a flood risk; See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Adderley lack of sewage and drainage capacity; lack of school capacity; few local amenities in the area; distance from site to town centre services; lack of town centre parking]. PORep0812 Object to Option 1 [lack of capacity on local road network; conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm See Volume 1. Saskia Reid to wildlife; impact on congestion; loss of farmland; brownfield sites are abundant]. PORep0813 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposed release too great and disproportionate to release in other See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Mike and Gill settlements; Little Chalfont already taken significant recent development; conflict with Green Belt Peters purposes; risk of coalescence between Little Chalfont and Chorleywood; Long Walk incorrectly identified as settlement boundary; loss of open countryside; loss of amenity space; local road network is constrained and lacks capacity; lack of sustainability; harm to wildlife; lack of capacity in local healthcare and schools; lack of parking; impact on traffic congestion; Green Belt release unevenly distributed across plan area]. PORep0814 Object to Option 11 [loss of outdoor recreation space; loss of community asset]. See Volume 1. Mrs Jennifer Barnes Brownies PORep0815 Object to Option 11 [loss of outdoor recreation space; loss of space for local amenity groups; harm See Volume 1. Mrs Jennifer Barnes to quality of life; impact on traffic congestion; loss of wildlife habitat; loss of open green space].

PORep0816 Object to Option 6 [loss of village character; lack of parking; lack of school places; lack of further

Classification: OFFICIAL 109 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Nigel Hamilton capacity in local healthcare; risk of urban sprawl; loss of ancient woodland; loss of wildlife habitat]. PORep0817 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt assessment process and outcomes were flawed; scale of proposed G Wheeler development too great; loss of village identity; Little Chalfont has taken more than its fair share of recent development; lack of capacity on local road network and on public transport services]. PORep0818 Object to Option 7 [evidence skewed in favour of release; Inner Green Belt Boundary Review See Volume 1. The soundness Mr Keith Bowler incomplete; conflict with Green Belt purposes; no exceptional circumstances; conflict with of the methodology and Neighbourhood Plan; Epilepsy site already undergoing development; lack of medical, education, conclusions of the evidence leisure and care facilities in village to support further growth; harm to setting of listed buildings; base work will be tested by an lack of public transport; potential harm to Colne Valley park and ancient woodland; loss of independent inspector at recreation space]. Object to Option 8 [harm to viability of scout camp; loss of community amenity examination. space; scale of proposal out of character with surrounding density; lack of public transport options; As part of this consultation the lack of capacity on local road network; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC; many existing Councils tested preferred permissions in CSP yet to be built out; pressue on local services; development unevenly distributed options based on the most up around the District; Infrastructure Capacity Study out of date; inconsistent conclusions of Green to date evidence available; Belt assessment]. therefore the options identified do not represent proposal sites. The scope of the Inner Green Boundary Review is to amend minor anomalies within the existing Green Belt; this would not include the strategic release of sites from the Green Belt which is being covered by the Green Belt Assessment Parts 1 and 2. PORep0819 Object to Option 6 [scale of proposal too great; local services lack capacity to support significant See Volume 1. Alex Masters growth; access roads to site are constrained; impact on traffic; Little Chalfont already taken substantial recent development; harm to attractive character]. PORep0820 Object to Option 1 [risk of urban sprawl; loss of open green space; increased flood risk; brownfield The Councils have Ms Margaret Cathick land in Chesham to be used first; increased traffic congestion; increased pollution; lack of capacity commissioned a Landscape in schools and healthcare; lack of capacity on train services serving Chesham; proposed new Assessment to establish a development should be better distributed across plan area; lack of public transport to site; loss of stronger understanding of the distinctive Buckinghamshire countryside]. impacts of potential development on the Preferred

Classification: OFFICIAL 110 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Options’ setting within the landscape. PORep0821 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes and is scored too low in the Green Belt See Volume 1. Mrs Mary Curtis assessment; housing need is not an exceptional circumstance; change in character of the community; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; Little Chalfont taken more than its fair share of recent development; insufficient infrastructure; lack of capacity in roads, parking, education and healthcare facilities]. PORep0822 Object to Option 1 [Conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of identity for Lye Green; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs E A Cooke farmland; loss of amenity space; loss of character; impact on traffic; increase in congestion; increase in pollution; impact on HS2; site access roads are constrained; strain on wastewater system; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare and transport; brownfield sites to be exhausted before Green Belt used]. PORep0823 Object to Options 7 and 8 [insufficient infrastructure; loss of Green Belt; harm to historic buildings See Volume 1. The Councils Ms Jacqueline Duggan and ancient woodland; loss of open countryside; increased traffic; Epilepsy site should be will seek to conserve heritage safeguarded to meet future community needs]. assets. PORep0824 Object to Option 7 [site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; site should be safeguarded for See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Simon Taylor future provision of specialist care facilities; harm to listed buidings; harm to ancient woodland; loss will seek to conserve heritage of recreation space]. Object to Option 8 [proposed development out of character of surrounding assets. area; lack of public transport; harm from overpopulation; loss of natural environment; loss of village character]. PORep0825 Object to Option 8 [existing infrastructure severely strained; release would be inconsistent with See Volume 1. Mr Robin Walker previous refusal of development at site on Green Belt grounds; loss of local community amenity; loss of scout and guide amenity; loss of rural character]. PORep0826 Object to Option 8 [area has been mis-scored in the Green Belt assessment; area performs Green The conclusions and Dr Keith Baggaley Belt purposes; unproven exceptional circumstances; evidence supporting historic significance of methodology of the Green Belt NSE site has been ignored; there are more appropriate sites in elsewhere in the District, specifically assessment work will be tested in Gerrards Cross and Great Missenden; conflict with the CSP Neighbourhood Plan; several large for soundness at the Local Plan developments already underway in CSP; lack of supporting infrastructure; local schools under examination by an strain; inadequate sewerage provision]. independent inspector. PORep0827 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; change to village character; impact on traffic, lack of See Volume 1. Nora Walsh parking; lack of space at schools and healthcare; Little Chalfont has had its fair share of recent development]. PORep0828 Object to Options 4 and 5 [traffic congestion already severe; flood risk; harm to Old Town See Volume 1. The Councils character; impact of HS2; insufficient public transport]. will need to carefully consider

Classification: OFFICIAL 111 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response the cumulative impact of planned major infrastructure works within the Plan Area over the Plan Period. PORep0829 Site 4.059 – It would in fact be a natural extension to the existing development in the area with See Volume 1. Mr Gerald Margolis good access to transport and services it has the undoubted capacity to provide some of the affordable homes required. PORep0830 General objection [Green Belt land inappropriate for development; lack of capacity on local public See Volume 1. Jacqueline O'Curry transport into London; lack of wastewater capacity; lack of school places; lack of parking; loss of rural character; harm to AONB]. PORep0831 Object to Option 11 [loss of openness and public green space; loss of protected woodland and See Volume 1. Dr Chris Jordan hedgerows; harm to wildlife; increase in pollution; potential conflict of interest as Arup engaged by the Councils and by Pinewood; impact on traffic congestion and road safety]. Object to Option 12 [flawed assessment methodology and conclusions; impact on Black Park; impact on traffic; unproven exceptional circumstances]. Support for Option 13 [opportunity to relocate HGV-generating industries; potential for relief road; opportunity for provision of new open space; opportunity to enhance existing wildlife habitats; sustainable location as next to Crossrail; opportunity to provide station car park]. Conditional support for Option 14 [subject to:- no provision of school as site is inappropriate; retention of green buffer between village and M25]. General objections to Preferred Options [incomplete evidence base; too many options in Iver area; environmental impacts underplayed]. PORep0832 Object to Option 1 [loss of identity for Lye Green; loss of farmland; infrastructure already at See Volume 1. Mr Seton Jerome Owens capacity in Chesham; shops and train services would become unsustainable; brownfield land should be developed before Green Belt; proposal contains little mention of infrastructure requirements; lack of parking; no exceptional circumstances; increase in traffic congestion; impact from HS2; lack of expansion capacity on Chesham branch line; water treatment plant at capacity; potential harm to chalk streams; harm to wildlife; lack of school and medical facilities]. PORep0833 Object to Option 7 [site fulfils Green Belt purposes; no exceptional circumstances; market housing See Volume 1. Mr Edwin Moutrie inappropriate on Epilepsy Site; lack of public transport serving the site]. Object to Option 8 [loss of Green Belt; increased urbanisation; loss of community amenity; harm to Scouting activities; proposed density out of character with surroundings; lack of public transport; harm to Chalfont Heights ERASC]. PORep0834 Support Option 1 [site is elevated and therefore not overlooked; Chesham has history of expansion Noted. Mr Norman Pearce so proposed development is a natural extension of this].

Classification: OFFICIAL 112 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0835 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; Little Chalfont already seen more recent See Volume 1. Mrs S K Loli growth than neighbouring settlements; nature of village would change; loss of wildlife corridor; lack of detail on infrastructure provision; lack of schools and healthcare capacity; access roads to site are constrained; lack of public transport; harm to setting of AONB]. PORep0837 Object to Option 8 [overdevelopment and overcrowding; roads and transport at capacity; green See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Weblin spaces should be preserved for future generations]. PORep0838 Object to Option 6 [conflict with purposes of Green Belt; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt See Volume 1. DJ Screeche-Powell development; harm to rural/village character; lack of infrastructure capacity; site access constrained by narrow roads; lack of existing capacity in local hospitals, schools, public transport, parking and utilities; Little Chalfont has already absorbed more recent development than neigbouring settlements; change of use away from residential should be restricted]. PORep0839 Object to Option 6 [risk of urban sprawl; loss of green space; loss of village character; impact on See Volume 1. Lesley Wilson traffic congestion; lack of parking; pressure on infrastructure; pressure on emergency services and PORep0840 Stoke Mandeville hospital; Council’s proposal contains few details on infrastructure consequences; Stuart Wilson harm to setting of AONB; harm to ancient woodland and local ecosystem; development should be distributed more evenly among local settlements such as Great Missenden]. PORep0841 Object to Option 9 [Green Belt assessment criteria unclear; negative impact on traffic congestion; The full Green Belt assessment Jacqueline Allen constraints on local road network; lack of parking in both Old and New Towns; lack of station methodology is available on parking; Wilton Park site has poor cohesion with existing Beaconsfield settlement; unlikely that the Planning Policy areas of development will achieve affordable housing; whilst some development supported scale of the Councils’ websites. As part proposal too great to be viable]. of any future development process there may be opportunities to strengthen connectivity between Beaconsfield and the Preferred Option area. See Volume 1. PORep0842 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt should not be developed; population increase would harm Little See Volume 1. Miss Mary Wyeth Chalfont; lack of parking; impact on traffic congestion; extreme pressure on local schools and health facilities]. PORep0843 Object to Option 11 [loss of dog walking space; loss of wildlife; pressure on schools; impact on See Volume 1. Geraldine Woodcock traffic congestion; loss of village character]. PORep0844 Object to Option 2 [public exhibition was unorganised and difficult to get answers; loss of green The Councils endeavoured to Mrs Margaret Garrett space and wildlife; new development will overlook existing residents; residential development on engage widely with the site of Holmer Green sports club a more viable option; pressure on schools and doctors; impact on community across several Classification: OFFICIAL 113 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response traffic congestion; harm to village atmosphere; alternative ways of delivering housing should be different mediums to seek found]. public comments and input. Delivering housing via Green Belt release is just one of several options which will be necessary to meet the Objectively Assessed Need as fully as possible within the plan area. PORep0845 Object to Option 9 [proposed population increase with associated traffic increase would be See Volume 1. Mr Jeff Barlow unsustainable; environment and town character would be harmed; scale of existing proposals at MoD site more appropriate]. PORep0846 No specific comment on 15 Preferred Options. Support the fact that no sites in Chalfont St Giles There are no Preferred Options Mrs Helen Griffiths have been taken forward as Preferred Options. Reiterate the strong Green Belt performance of ten in Chalfont St Giles. Clerk and RFO Chalfont St sites in Chalfont St Giles considered in Part One of the Green Belt Assessment. Giles Parish Council PORep0847 Object to Option 6 [harm to quality of life of existing residents; increased traffic; lack of parking; The principle of releasing the Mr Jolyon Lea lack of school places; no infrastructure details in Council proposals]. land from Green Belt must be established before specific plans for infrastructure development can be prepared. Costing and funding are related to specific development plans and cannot therefore be explored until such plans come forward. PORep0848 Object to Option 6 [harm to environment; risk of setting precedent for Green Belt development; See Volume 1. Phyllis Lea pressure on infrastructure; Little Chalfont has already done its bit for local development]. PORep0849 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt development will set a precedent; village character will be harmed; See Volume 1. Sheila Page Little Chalfont has already provided more recent development than surrounding settlements; lack of capacity in local infrastructure, services and road network; harm to wildlife and ancient woodland]. PORep0850 Object to Option 6 [loss of pleasant character; loss of distinct identity; better alternative sites for See Volume 1. GW Page development exist; densification within existing settlements may be better option].

Classification: OFFICIAL 114 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0851 Object to Option 6 [no positive argument for development; access roads to site are unsuitable; See Volume 1. The Councils are Mrs Christine Masters inadequate infrastructure to support growth; lack of capacity in schools, healthcare, parking and committed to planning water network; market likely to delivery expensive housing; Little Chalfont taking more than its fair positively to meet the current share of development]. and future development needs of the Districts. PORep0852 Object to Option 6 [risk of encroachment onto natural environment; conflict with Green Belt See Volume 1. D Nelson purposes; lack of exceptional circumstances; harm to community character and quality of environment; substantial recent development already taken place in Little Chalfont; Green Belt assessment conclusion reveals limited understanding of the area]. PORep0853 General comment [how would development be financed?; Concern at potential relocation of The Green Belt Preferred Mrs Dee Howard community facilities]. Options conisders the principle of Green Belt release. Details related to specific development schemes, including finance, cannot be explored until the principle of release is established. PORep0854 Object to Option 6 [risk of central gov intervention does not justify Green Belt release around Little See Volume 1. The Mrs D C Griffin Chalfont; surrounding settlements better able to absorb growth; difficult to achieve truly methodology and conclusions affordable housing in Little Chalfont; harm to environment; loss of amenity land; conflict with of the Green Belt assessment Green Belt purposes; Green Belt assessment conclusions conflict with council’s own methodology; work will be tested for loss of openness; loss of wildlife habitat; harm to ancient woodland; harm to AONB setting; soundness at examination of housing need not an exceptional circumstance; increased congestion on A404; village services the Local Plan by an struggle to cope with existing population; lack of expansion capacity on rail network; site access independent inspector. constrained by narrow roads; distance from site to village services; lack of detail on infrastructure need in proposals; strain on schools and healthcare; lack of public transport serving the site; loss of rural character; of housing need at stated level is genuine then solution should be a new settlement]. PORep0855 Object to Option 11 [loss of community asset and recreation space; land performs Green Belt See Volume 1. Support noted. Mrs Jennifer Edwards purposes; location is not sustainable; impact on local traffic volume; no exceptional circumstances; displacement of wildlife; several major initiative already scheduled for Iver area]. Support Option 14 if developed for a school. PORep0856 Object to Option 6 [loss of openness; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; Green Belt See Volume 1. Mrs Emma Fallon assessment reached wrong conclusion; risk of setting precedent of Green Belt development; loss

Classification: OFFICIAL 115 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response of ancient woodland; loss of wildlife habitat; lack of capacity in village infrastructure such as roads, parking, schools and healthcare]. PORep0857 Object to Option 9 [lack of detail on amenities and services such as supermarkets and sports See Volume 1. Mr Richard facilities; limited existing parking; more details needed]. Walker-Morecroft PORep0858 Object to Options 7 and 8 [too much recent development in CSP; severe pressure on schools and See Volume 1. Mr Bryan Winkett healthcare; lack of transport links; no exceptional circumstances]. PORep0859 Object to Option 6 [housing need not established; harm to small village character; lack of See Volume 1. MRs Coral Ash additional capacity in local infrastructure and services; coalescence of Little Chalfont and Amersham; harm to wildlife; lack of parking; increased flood risk; Little Chalfont already seen its fair share of recent development]. PORep0860 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont taken more than its fair share of recent development; risk of See Volume 1. Mr James Nickless setting precedent of Green Belt development; loss of openness; harm to character of village; site PORep0861 scored incorrectly in Green Belt assessment; site performs Green Belt purposes strongly; no Mrs Gillian Nickless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated; site would not be sustainable; harm to AONB; PORep0863 distance from site to services; impact on vehicle movements and traffic congestion; harm to Elizabeth Nickless biodiversity; harm to wildlife]. PORep0862 Object to Option 9 [destruction of countryside; harm to town character; Green Belt loss See Volume 1. MR Roger Ouaret irreversible; loss of wildlife; costs of development would outweigh gains; Green Belt development in general is wrong development option]. PORep0864 Object to Option 9 [Beaconsfield already seen considerable densification; infrastructure not See Volume 1. Andre Nasr updated to support growing population; impact on traffic problems; lack of road capacity]. PORep0865 Object to Option 6 [distance from site to village centre; lack of road capacity; disproportionate See Volume 1. Miss Marilyn Hunt population increase relative to proposals for other areas; loss of ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. PORep0866 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont already taken a substantial amount of recent development; See Volume 1. Mrs Barbara Brookes impact on congestion on A404; inadequate parking; lack of infrastructure capacity; loss of semi-rural character; loss of countryside; other options for meeting housing need must be thoroughly explored before Green Belt development]. PORep0867 Object to Option 9 [threat to allotments and cricket club; impact on traffic congestion; risk to See Volume 1. Mr Peter Antoniou school children from increased traffic]. PORep0868 Object to Option 6 [harm to AONB setting; conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of open See Volume 1. Mr Aidan Thomas countryside; Little Chalfont taken its fair share of recent development; change to village character; lack of local infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic; lack of parking; pressure on local schools and

Classification: OFFICIAL 116 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response healthcare; harm to wildlife; loss of ancient woodland].

PORep0869 Object to Option 6 [loss of open space; conflict with Green Belt purposes; Green Belt inappropriate See Volume 1. Mrs Keren Thomas for development; harm to village character; Little Chalfont has already seen significant recent development; lack of capacity in road network, parking, schools and healthcare; loss of biodiversity; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0870 Object to Option 9 [harm to town character; development would be more appropriate in See Volume 1. Mrs Helen Alexander settlements with existing modern housing estates; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; loss of countryside; sets a precedent of Green Belt development; harm to wildlife; scale of proposals beyond original Wilton Park MoD site is disproportionate]. PORep0871 Object to Option 8 [loss of rural character; harm to wildlife and plant life; harm to scouting See Volume 1. Mrs Karen Tempest experience; loss of community amenity; threat to safety of young scouts; threat to viability of Polaris Explorer Scouts scouting facility]. PORep0873 Object to Option 1 [conflict with NPPF and Green Belt purposes; no exceptional circumstances; See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Bill Richards severe increase in traffic and congestion; cumulative impact from HS2 construction traffic; harm to will seek to conserve heritage Town Clerk AQMA with resultant increase in air pollution; harm to attractiveness and viability of town centre; assets. The Air Quality impacts Chesham Town Council increased risk of surface water flooding; Chesham sewage treatment works already at capacity; are a key consideration. limited scope to increase water abstraction; harm to local aquifer; loss of Lye Green identity; harm to historic buildings at Lye Green; Chesham needs starter homes and elderly accommodation but site’s location is inappropriate for both; lack of local employment options; encroachment onto countryside; harm to wildlife and biodiversity; harm to setting of AONB]. PORep0874 Object to Option 3 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of settlement identity; harm to village See Volume 1. The Councils Mrs Anne Deung community; harm to AONB and ancient woodland; increase to traffic levels; harm to wildlife; will need to carefully consider proposals unviable now that Wycombe DC are not progressing their Hazelmere option]. the implications of surrounding authorities’ emerging Local Plans as the Joint Local Plan progresses. PORep0876 Object to Option 8 [Scout camp would become unviable; loss of remote and rural character; See Volume 1. Dave Wood increased risk to children; harm to viability of scout camp]. PORep0878 Object to Options 7 and 8 [risk of overwhelming local services; risk of urban sprawl; impact on See Volume 1. Mrs Kate Hewitt traffic congestion; cumulative impact from permissions at Holy Cross; flood risk; loss of valued local amenity space; loss of recreation facilities]. PORep0879 Object to Option 6 [insufficient infrastructure; additional pressure on local schools and medical See Volume 1.

Classification: OFFICIAL 117 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Mr Ian Sutcliffe services; insufficient local road network; harm to setting of AONB; impact on traffic congestion; lack of retail parking; lack of station parking; insufficient train service]. PORep0880 Object to Option 6 [no exceptional circumstances; risk of urban sprawl; impact on traffic See Volume 1. congestion; lack of station parking; housing need should be met via densification; site access constrained by railway bridge; harm to character of the village; development could be concentrated in run down areas which would benefit from investment]. PORep0881 Object to Option 6 [impact on traffic congestion; site access constrained by narrow roads; harm to See Volume 1. Mike Exell pedestrian and road safety; harm to Green Belt; harm to AONB]. PORep0883 Conditional support for Option 6 [subject to:- reduction in number of proposed dwellings to Noted. See Volume 1. Mike Brasier protect village character and limit impact on local road network; provision of additional station parking; provision of additional forms of entry at local schools or provision of new schools; provision of additional village centre retail parking; capture of planning gain via S106 or CIL mechanisms; number of dwellings capped at 300]. PORep0884 Object to Option 6 [lack of parking; lack of retail capacity; lack of facilities in Little Chalfont]. See Volume 1. Dr AB Watts PORep0885 Object to Option 3 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to AONB; pressure on health and See Volume 1. The Councils Mr Timothy Hobbs education services; increase in traffic; loss of rural character; brownfield sites to be developed have commissioned a instead of Green Belt]. Landscape Assessment to establish a stronger understanding of the impact that potential development might have on the Preferred Options’ character and setting within the landscape. PORep0886 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; harm to the community; lack of capacity in roads network, See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Foster parking, schools and healthcare]. PORep0887 Object to Option 3 [development could impact access to Common Wood; increased safety risk; See Volume 1. Miss Alison Clayton loss of amenity space for riding; loss of stabling facilities; risk of urban sprawl; conflict with Green Treasurer Belt purposes; impact on public rights of way; harm to ancient woodland and AONB; harm to Penn Area Bridleways ecosystem/wildlife; CDC encouraged to follow Wycombe DC’s lead of dropping Hazlemere Association option]. PORep0888 Object to Option 4 [harm to AONB; harm to Green Belt; development should be concentrated on See Volume 1. Mr Michael Dangerfield brownfield sites; site is in a flood zone; harm to wildlife; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity].

Classification: OFFICIAL 118 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0890 Object to Option 6 [Conflict with purposes of Green Belt; Little Chalfont already taken its fair share See Volume 1. Diana Dolan of development; harm to village character; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; PORep0971 potential for road damage during construction; harm to setting of AONB; impact on traffic Michael Dolan congestion; lack of road network capacity]. PORep0891 Town is too crowded. Will ruin the special character of the town. Old town already suffers See Volume 1. These factors Mrs Amy Allen massively from over crowding with traffic. Infrastructure cannot take the proposed additional will be determined in greater residents detail at a later stage if the principle and scale of development has been established through the Local Plan process. PORep0892 Object to Option 6 [housing need does not justify Green Belt release; risk of setting a precedent of See Volume 1. Mrs Julia Robertson Green Belt development; there has already been significant recent development in Little Chalfont; impact on road safety; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; harm to wildlife and natural environment]. PORep0893 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; harm to town character; harm to quality of life; pressure on See Volume 1. J Burton healthcare waiting times; lack of parking; lack of space on trains; increased traffic congestion; Bucks’s housing need better met via concentrating development in larger town or by a smaller Beaconsfield expansion]. PORep0894 Object to Option 6 [site unsuitable for housing; scale of proposed development excessive; harm to See Volume 1. Mr Raymond Beatty environment; lots of recent development already in village; increase in traffic congestion; lack of parking; site access constrained by railway bridge]. PORep0895 Object to Option 9 [loss of town character; increase in traffic congestion; lack of school capacity; Green Belt release if taken Mr Charlie Allen development driven by profits]. forward will be driven by the need to meet objectively assessed development need as fully as possible within the Plan Area. PORep0896 I am saying NO to the release of the Green Belt. This land still serves the 5 purposes of Green belt. See Volume 1. Mrs Frederique Tewes It would destroy our beautiful countryside and would harm the character of our town. PORep0897 Object to Option 9 [land serves all Green Belt purposes; harm to wildlife; harm to town See Volume 1. Mr Paul Jones infrastructure; impact from HS2; harm to town character; harm to quality of life of existing residents].

Classification: OFFICIAL 119 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0898 I am horrified to see Option 6 Little Chalfont. The area must stay as Green Belt. It is villages like See Volume 1. Miss Allison Paul Little Chalfont that make England a wonderful place. Please do not build all over it with some ridiculous urban new development. PORep0899 Object to Option 6 [site scores too low in Green Belt assessment; housing need not an exceptional See Volume 1. Mrs Stella Jenkins circumstance; scale of development too great; Little Chalfont already taken more than its fair share of recent development; strain on roads, parking, schools and healthcare; lack of capacity on trains; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; loss of amenity space and open space]. PORep0900 Object to Option 9 [loss of town character; insufficient infrastructure; lack of capacity in rail See Volume 1. Mr Daniel Taylor network, road network, schools and healthcare; affordable housing unachievable]. PORep0901 Object to Option 9 [affordable housing unachievable in Beaconsfield; lack of capacity in schools See Volume 1. Commercial Ms MMB Fox and healthcare; development would be available to affluent buyers only; Inland Homes not decisions are not within the supported as developer of site]. scope of the Local Plan. PORep0902 Object to Option 6 [no exceptional circumstances; risk of creating precedent for Green Belt See Volume 1. Mr Kenneth Wilcock development; loss of community; Little Chalfont already taken fair share of development; harm to road network, parking, education and healthcare; harm to environmental loss of woodland]. PORep0904 Object to Option 9 [harm to town character; no exceptional circumstances; lack of school capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Sara Torrome conflict with Green Belt purposes; loss of countryside; insufficient infrastructure; lack of station capacity; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0905 Object to Options 4, 5 and 9 [lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity; See Volume 1. Mrs Emma Seddon increased traffic congestion which will impact effectiveness of emergency service responses; harm to AONB; increase in pollution; key worker and affordable housing unachievable].

PORep0906 Object to Option 9 [harm to town character; no exceptional circumstances; lack of school capacity; See Volume 1. Mr Philip Adams conflict with purposes of Green Belt; loss of countryside; insufficient infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0907 Object to Option 9 [lack of infrastructure capacity; existing densification putting infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr Michael Hopton under strain; affordable housing unachievable in Beaconsfield; pressure on transport network; lack of infrastructure detail in proposals makes it hard to support development]. PORep0908 Object to Option 9 [lack of capacity in healthcare and schools; increased traffic congestion; harm See Volume 1. Mr Waseem Malik to environment; lack of parking; lack of capacity on trains; loss of rural character]. PORep0910 Object to Option 6 [housing need does not justify Green Belt development; scale of proposed See Volume 1. Mr John Taylor development too great; significant recent development already in Little Chalfont; insufficient infrastructure; brownfield sites to be exhausted before Green Belt development; provision of housing will attract new residents rather than meet existing need].

Classification: OFFICIAL 120 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0911 Object to Option 6 [site scored too low in assessment; site access is constrained; infrastructure See Volume 1. Mrs Vanessa Nicholson already under pressure]. PORep0912 Object to Option 9 [loss of character; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; relief road plans See Volume 1. Mr Damian Alexander flawed; loss of countryside and open space; conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to wildlife; lack of school, healthcare and retail capacity; object to the densification taking place within existing built area of Beaconsfield]. PORep0913 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure; scale of proposed development out of proportion with See Volume 1. Ms Caroline Davis existing settlement; poor road transport; lack of parking; lack of healthcare and school capacity; infrastructure proposals too vague]. PORep0914 Object to Option 6 [site performs Green Belt purposes; threat of overdevelopment; lack of capacity See Volume 1. Mr Hamzah Sethi in road network, parking, schools and healthcare; loss of biodiversity and ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. PORep0916 Object to Option 6 [housing need does not justify Green Belt development; scale of proposed See Volume 1. Mrs Bao Kie Taylor development too great; significant recent development already in Little Chalfont; harm to ancient woodland; loss of wildlife; harm to environment; incumbent upon Council to protect Green Belt].

PORep0917 Object to all Options [political obligation to protect Green Belt; brownfield sites to be exhausted See Volume 1. Miss Narlep Laura before Green Belt used; lack of consideration for infrastructure; existing services stretched; consultation process poorly advertised]. PORep0919 Object to Option 1 [harm to wildlife in general and birdlife in particular; loss of biodiversity; loss of See Volume 1. Ms Julia Denial recreation and amenity space; suppression of house values; strain on infrastructure; potential for increased pollution and runoff into River Chess; impact on traffic congestion; construction of HS2]. PORep0920 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; housing need not an exception See Volume 1. Mr David Hurd circumstance; danger of setting a precedent for Green Belt development; public access to and enjoyment of Green Belt should be enhanced not reduced; harm to character of village; site access is constrained; Little Chalfont has taken its fair share of development; harm to ancient woodland; harm to biodiversity]. PORep0921 Destruction of countryside and will harm the town. See Volume 1. Mrs Liz Devine PORep0922 Support all Green Belt Options [needed to address national housing shortage; increasing supply Noted. Mr Nick Little more effective solution to housing crisis than any other]. PORep0923 Object to Option 1 [loss of openness; risk of urban sprawl and overdevelopment; brownfield land See Volume 1. Ms Helen Peeks to be exhausted before Green Belt used; too many houses for Chesham; impact on traffic congestion; harm to healthcare services; lack of transport and parking capacity; distance from site Classification: OFFICIAL 121 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response to services and town centre]. PORep0924 Save our green belt land See Volume 1. Miss Katie Francis PORep0925 Holmer Green Sports Association, is situated north of High Wycombe where sports facilities are Noted. Mr Peter Rainer under resourced. It has a vibrant sports programme of football, cricket, squash, tennis, even short mat bowling, all of which have well established patronage. The new sports centre at Cressex can only boast two squash courts, equalling Holmer Greens in number, who could use more. The existing facilities require updating, ideally by a new building. PORep0926 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure capacity; impact on traffic congestion; loss of natural See Volume 1. Mr Russell Webb habitat; harm to environment; loss of ancient woodland; insufficient train capacity; additional pollution]. PORep0927 Object to Option 6 [meets Green Belt purposes; harm village community and character; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Patricia Dite capacity on trains; strain on infrastructure; harm to ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; harm to AONB; unproven exceptional circumstances]. PORep0928 Object to Option 9 [lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to character of town; traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mr Mark Seddon lack of school capacity]. PORep0930 Object to Option 1 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; overdevelopment; lack of capacity in village See Volume 1. Mrs Clare Rees infrastructure, healthcare and schools; lack of parking; harm to quality of life]. PORep0931 Object to Option 9 [loss of Green Belt; overdevelopment; harm to character of Old Town; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Antony I Woodward parking; increased pollution; impact on traffic congestion; harm to quality of life of existing residents]. PORep0932 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; proposals would be overdevelopment; lack See Volume 1. Ms Rachel Rees of capacity in road network, healthcare and schools; lack of parking; harm to character of village; PORep0933 harm to quality of life]. Mr Tom Rees PORep0934 Object to Option 6 [risk of setting a precedent for Green Belt development; lack of capacity on See Volume 1. Mr and Mrs W Kendal train network; impact on traffic congestion; site access is constrained by pinch points; harm to AONB; cumulative impact of recently completed and recently permitted developments; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; potential flooding risk]. PORep0935 Support Option 9 [Subject to:- good design; retention of open green space; protection of wildlife; Noted. See Volume 1. MRS Deborah Sanders provision of specialist elderly accommodation; provision of a medical centre and carparking]. PORep0936 Object to Option 1 [Green Belt should not be used for housing; overdevelopment; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Ms Cheryl Leigh congestion; strain placed on schools, healthcare and social services; site inappropriate for gypsy The National Planning Policy and traveller pitches; harm to AONB; cumulative impact of HS2]. on Traveller Sites encourages Classification: OFFICIAL 122 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0937 Object to Options 2 and 3 [lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of parking; concerns over school See Volume 1. Angela Mepham places; impact on traffic; lack of healthcare capacity; suppression of house values]. PORep0938 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; increased traffic on A404; Little Chalfont has taken its fair See Volume 1. Mrs Ann Cummings share of development; little chance of providing affordable housing; disruption during PORep0939 construction; site access difficulties; lack of school and healthcare capacity; increased pressure on Mr Philip Cummings train services; lack of parking; conflict with Green Belt purposes; danger of setting a precedent for Green Belt development; harm to setting of AONB; harm to biodiversity; harm to wildlife].

PORep0940 Object to Option 9 [No exceptional circumstances; land serves the fives purposes of Green Belt; See Volume 1. Mr Ian Burgess loss of countryside; Negative impact outweighs the benefits; Harms character of town; strain on rail/ road/ doctors/ schools]. PORep0941 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt objectives; overdevelopment and urban sprawl; loss of See Volume 1. Mrs Victoria Tham village character; lack of capacity in infrastructure; lack of parking; pressure on healthcare and schools; no details included in proposals regarding infrastructure provision; harm to biodiversity; loss of ancient woodland; harm to wildlife]. PORep0942 Object to Option 1 [inappropriate location for development; distance from site to services and See Volume 1. Mrs Deborah Goodes town centre; inappropriate for gypsy and traveller pitches; impact on traffic congestion and road The National Planning Policy safety; increase in pollution; lack of train capacity; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare on Traveller Sites encourages capacity; loss of open space; harm to identity and town character]. Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0943 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; loss of countryside; increase in pollution; harm to See Volume 1. Mrs Harsharon Puaar environment; pressue on infrastructure; increase in traffic; impact on tourism; lack of parking; harm The National Planning Policy

Classification: OFFICIAL 123 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response to road safety; lack of public transport capacity; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm to on Traveller Sites encourages town character; site inappropriate for gypsy and traveller pitches]. Local Authorities to accommodate Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in schemes for 'conventional' housing. This is an option which is being tested as part of this process. PORep0944 Object to Option 6 [harm to community and environment; lack of parking; impact on traffic and See Volume 1. Mrs Sam Lloyd-Adams amenities; harm to Green Belt; harm to wildlife]. PORep0945 Object to Option 9 [lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of healthcare and school capacity; lack of See Volume 1. Mrs Laura Hall amenity space; lack of parking; no prospect of affordable housing provision; loss of character; impact on traffic congestion]. PORep0946 Object to Option 9 [no exceptional circumstances; conflict with purposes of Green Belt; loss of See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Dyer countryside; harm to town character]. PORep0947 Conditional support for Options 13 and 14 [subject to:- construction of relief road; provision of Noted. See Volume 1. Ms Dilnaz Akbar noise barriers; provision of additional school and healthcare facilities; safeguarding of some areas for green space and future secondary school]. PORep0948 Conditional support for Option 13 [subject to:- construction of relief road; provision of additional Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Sanjay Sharma school and healthcare facilities]. PORep0949 Object to Option 1 [risk of setting a precedent; pressure on sewage and drainage; lack of school See Volume 1. Ms Georgina Lomnitz and healthcare capacity; increase in pollution; loss of wildlife]. PORep0950 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; lack of infrastructure capacity; lack of healthcare and school See Volume 1. Mrs Joan Martin capacity; lack of capacity in road network]. PORep0951 Object to Option 6 [unknown impact from current developments; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mr Peter Genders danger of setting a precedent; additional pressure on water supply, education and healthcare; lack of capacity in wider road network; harm to ancient woodland]. PORep0952 Object to Option 9 [lack of school capacity; impact on traffic; lack of capacity on trains; loss of See Volume 1. Kelly Rose countryside; harm to town character]. PORep0953 No Comment See Volume 1. Celia Thomas PORep0954 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; impact on traffic congestion; increased pollution; lack of See Volume 1. Mr Dominie Bradshaw capacity in healthcare, public transport and utilities; loss of countryside; harm to town character].

Classification: OFFICIAL 124 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0955 Object to Option 6 [Green Belt inappropriate for housing; danger of setting a precedent; conflict See Volume 1. Mr Ian Todd with Green Belt purposes; harm to AONB setting; lack of parking; lack of infrastructure capacity; harm to village character; loss of open space; loss of community spirit]. PORep0956 Object to Option 9 [impact on traffic congestion; increased pressure on school and healthcare See Volume 1. Mrs Rachel Cunliffe provision; lack of infrastructure considerations in proposals; harm to character of the town]. PORep0957 Object to Option 1 [loss of open space; Chesham sewage treatment works already near capacity; See Volume 1. Detailed habitat Mr Ken Austin harm to River Chess through pollution and over abstraction; increased air pollution along A416 and environmental Planning Advisor through Chesham; increase risk of road accidents from additional traffic movements]. Object to assessments would be Chesham & District Natural Option 4 [site is very open; potential risk to River Misbourne chalk stream; insufficient details given expected as development History Society on protection for River Misbourne]. Object to Option 5 [site is largely open; potential risk to River proposals come forward. This Misbourne chalk stream; insufficient details given on protection for River Misbourne]. stage of the process is simply establishing the principle of Green Belt release. PORep0958 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has already received its fair share of development; lack of See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Marshall capacity in schools and healthcare; insufficient public transport; impact on traffic congestion; harm to ancient woodland; increased pollution; harm to village character]. PORep0959 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to village character; loss of open See Volume 1. Alan Baker space; proposed scale too large; lack of infrastructure, transport and retail capacity]. PORep0960 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; brownfield options to be pursued as See Volume 1. The Dr Christopher Clack alternative; harm to AONB; flawed and misleading methodology used to identify Preferred methodology and output from Options; flawed Sustainability Appraisal methodology and output; overdevelopment; lack of the Sustainability Appraisal will capacity in transport and sewerage networks; lack of school and healthcare capacity; loss of be tested for soundness by an character; insufficient public transport; increased pollution; housing need does not constitute independent inspector when exceptional circumstances]. the Plan is submitted to the Secretary of State. PORep0961 Object to Option 9 [overdevelopment; insufficient infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; lack See Volume 1. Steve McAdam of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity]. PORep0962 Object to Option 6 [loss of Green Belt; lack of built form on site; lack of infrastructure capacity; See Volume. Brian Drew impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking and public transport capacity; lack of school capacity; overevelopment; loss of character; harm to biodiversity and ancient woodland]. PORep0964 Object to Option 1[insufficient public transport; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking in See Volume 1. Mr Peter Plested Chesham; additional water abstraction; increased pollution]. PORep0965 Object to Option 6 [Little Chalfont has had its fair share of development; harm to Green Belt; harm See Volume. Mrs Linda Witton to AONB; loss of village character; impact on traffic congestion; lack of road capacity; distance

Classification: OFFICIAL 125 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response from site to services and village centre].

PORep0966 Object to 9 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; harm to historic town character; lack of See Volume. Mrs Lindsay Bosma infrastructure capacity; population increase too great; loss of identity of Seer Green; harm to heritage assets; unproven exceptional circumstances]. PORep0967 Object to Option 6 [harm to village character; lack of healthcare capacity; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Mr Derek Garrard congestion and road safety; lack of school capacity; increase in crime; need should be met via brownfield development]. PORep0968 Object to Option 6 [housing need not an exceptional circumstance; impact on traffic congestion; See Volume 1. Mrs Janet Hearn lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity; Little Chalfont has had fair share of development; harm to wildlife and woodland]. PORep0969 We would request that the assessment of parcel 4.179 is revisited and considered further for See Volume 1. Caroline Chave release from the Green Belt. The parcel covers an area of 0.91ha which could make a valuable Chace Planning on behalf contribution towards provision of housing in a location where Green Belt objectives would not be of Mr Adam Grint compromised by the release of land from the Green Belt. Gerrards Cross Golf Club PORep0970 Object to Option 9 [inappropriate location for affordable housing though need for such is See Volume 1. Mr Simon Middleton acknowledged; impact on traffic congestion; harm to town character; pressure on public transport; smaller development more appropriate]. PORep0972 Object to Option 6 [conflict with Green Belt purposes; site assessment is inconsistent with See Volume 1. Mr James Robb methodology; lack of infrastructure, transport, road and school capacity; unproven exceptional circumstances; impact on traffic congestion; harm to character of village; harm to AONB]. PORep0973 My preference is the plan which has the least impact on busy town centres. Beaconsfield is already See Volume 1. Mr David Bennett frequently grid-locked. No amount of peripheral road building or expansion will lessen the demand for new residents to drive into the town. PORep0975 Object to Option 4 [harm to setting of River Misbourne and Misbourne Valley]. Support Option 5 Noted. See Volume 1. The Mrs Joanne King [less visible from surrounding countryside than Option 4; low impact on openness]. Conditional Councils have commissioned a support for Option 6 [subject to:- resolution of access issues; replacement of Lodge Lane railway Landscape Assessment to bridge; road junction improvements; school provision; healthcare provision; retail improvements; establish if there is likely to be better linkages with station and village centre; provision of affordable housing]. harm to the setting and character of the Green Belt options from potential development nearby.

Classification: OFFICIAL 126 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response PORep0976 Conditional support for Option 11 [subject to:- no social housing to be included; infrastructure Noted. Anon improvements; retention of part of the fields as open space]. PORep0977 Object to Option 6 [harm to Green Belt; urban sprawl; no exceptional circumstances until See Volume 1. Mrs Jane brownfield land exhausted; harm to AONB; assessments made by non-locals; flawed assessment Featherstone-Witty methodology and conclusions; loss of open green space; loss of amenity space; harm to quality of life; loss of ancient woodland; harm to wildlife; impact on traffic congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; distance from site to services and village centre; lack of parking; Little Chalfont has already had its fair share of development]. PORep0978 Object to Option 6 [loss of rural character; loss of open fields; loss of woodland; harm to wildlife; See Volume 1. Mrs Louise Hannah impact on visitor numbers; danger of setting precedent of Green Belt development; Little Chalfont already had its fair share of development; impact on infrastructure uncertain; site access difficult; lack of capacity in road network]. PORep0979 Object to Option 1 [lack of infrastructure; impact on traffic congestion; lack of healthcare and See Volume 1. Mr Anthony Usher school capacity; impact on sewer network; insufficient parking and public transport; disproportionate level of delopment proposed for Chesham relative to other areas]. PORep0980 Object to Option 6 [housing need not an exceptional circumstance; overdevelopment; Little See Volume 1. Veronica Penfold Chalfont has had its fair share of development; impact on traffic congestion; lack of parking; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of sewerage and utilities capacity; harm to wildlife]. PORep0981 Object to Options 7 and 8 [There is no evidence to back up CDC's estimate of unmet housing need The evidence base, Mr Glyn Taylor of 5,800 dwellings. There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’. There are obvious substantial gaps in methodology and conclusions Chairman the evidence base. The sites are not sustainable. Scoring for Option 7 is inconsistent and biased. It of the Green Belt assessment SENSE4CSP meets the five purposes of the Green Belt. The Sustainability Development Criteria Assessment is work, including unmet needs, again biased. It will have an effect on ancient woodland, sewerage and biodiversity. It would clearly will be tested by an in terms of development have an adverse impact on pollution, cultural heritage and climate independent inspector when change. As a whole development of this site much beyond its current built footprint would have a the full Draft Plan is examined. harmful effect on almost every aspect of amenity in the Chalfont St Peter locality. In sustainability The process of preparing the terms the current local infrastructure is currently insufficient to support development at the ES Site. emerging Joint Local Plan, It is clear that congestion will become a huge issue due to narrow and totally unsustainable roads including the Green Belt which surround it. The agricultural land on the ES site is high grade. Currently there are important assessment work, is recreational facilities on the site. Land adjoining Option 8 is a nationally important site to the Scout evidence-led and is undertaken movement and a loss of outdoor recreation. Development of this site will cause a loss of amenity without prejudice. for the residents of Chalfont Heights (ERASC)]. PORep0982 Object to Options 11, 13 and 14 [inappropriate for development; pollution from M25; Brexit to Noted. Secondary school Mrs H Ayers reduce development need]. Conditional support for Option 12 [subject to:- construction of delivery is highly complex and

Classification: OFFICIAL 127 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response secondary school]. is dependent on a range of stakeholders. The Councils are consulting with the County Council as the Education Authority to ensure that additional educations needs arising from development over the plan period will be met. PORep0984 Object to Option 5 [exacerbate high level of disturbance from traffic; loss of open space; loss of See Volume 1. Shanta Gillott amenity space; no evidence that impact on school and medical facilities has been considered; PORep0985 cumulative impact of HS2; harm to town’s heritage and character; increase in pollution]. Andrew King PORep0986 Object to Option 6 [lack of infrastructure; insufficient public transport; lack of school and See Volume 1. Mrs Janne Hudson healthcare capacity; lack of parking; site access problematic; harm to wildlife].

PORep0987 Land East of Whielden Street, Old Amersham - The land does not make a significant contribution See Volume 1. Mr Iain Summerfield [West to the wider surrounding Green Belt, and the presence of the A413 (with its vegetation boundary) Waddy ADP on behalf of acts as a physical barrier which would visually contain development on this identified ‘Preferred Aston Homes Ltd] Option’. As a result, and in our professional view, the land can be removed from the Green Belt and contribute to sustainable development. The land is within the Chilterns AONB, and there is proximity to the existing built form of Amersham, however these aspects could be appropriately addressed within the design and policy compliance of a proposed development, and therefore should not prevent the land of my client from being removed from the Green Belt designation. PORep0988 Land at Bowstridge Lane and rear of High Street, Chalfont St Giles - The review of the See Volume 1. Stephen Lucas representation site 4.150 as part of the Part Two Assessment is as noted above unfortunately Lucas Land and Planning flawed with many inaccuracies and misrepresentations. The representation site is proposed for retirement housing / older persons housing with appropriate affordable housing all of which accords with district and village needs. The use is entirely sustainable and is located adjacent to the central area of Chalfont St Giles, entirely within the settlement framework. The close proximity of the doctor's surgery, bus stops and the range of service and retail uses within easy walking of distance of the proposal site make this location entirely suitable for the residential use proposed and is in complete accord with housing needs in the district. The continued annotation of the site as Green Belt is a complete nonsense and we fully intend to progress this matter to the local plan inquiry. Finally we are aware that huge swathes of

Classification: OFFICIAL 128 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response land are recommended to be taken out of the Green Belt in the councils Preferred Options Consultation. We again re-iterate the word sustainable and question the logic in the process being pursued, as many sites in the councils listing are neither sustainable nor appropriate. PORep0989 Object to Option 3 [lack of public information; consultation period too short; lack of infrastructure See Volume 1. Mr & Mrs Stuart and capacity; impact on traffic congestion and road safety; lack of school and healthcare capacity; harm Christine Cranmer to AONB; best development strategy would be a New Settlement]. PORep0991 Object to conclusions of Green Belt Assessment for option 4.053 in Prestwood [current alignment Noted. See Volume 1. Carole Eaden of the Green Belt boundary is illogical and would be better served by realignment to boundary features surrounding the site – extensive reasoning and evidence provided to support this position]. PORep0992 Object to Option 11 [cumulative impact of development in Iver Heath; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Mr Simon Wright congestion; need for infrastructure upgrades; loss of amenity space/open green space]. PORep0993 Object to Option 6 [loss of open space; harm to environment; harm to wildlife; impact on traffic See Volume 1. Mrs Helen Frewin congestion; lack of school and healthcare capacity; lack of parking; impact on local retail PORep0994 I DO NOT what these houses to be built. I have lived in little chalfont all of my life and I love the See Volume 1. Miss Antonia Hudson surrounding area. This will be ruined if house are built here. Please do not build these houses in little chalfont. PORep0995 Object to Option 6 [overdevelopment; lack of infrastructure capacity; loss of open space; harm to See Volume 1. The Green Belt Mr Adrian Hine Green Belt; lack of school and healthcare capacity; flawed assessment methodology and assessment methodology and conclusion; harm to woodland and farmland; harm to wildlife; settlement coalescence; loss of conclusions will be tested for village character and identity]. soundness by an independent inspector when the full Draft Plan is examined. PORep0996 General objection to any release of minor Green Belt sites [minor sites to be rejected on the basis See Volume 1. Mr Nigel Moule that the limited contribution to housing supply is outweighed by the harm to the Green Belt and to the community]. PORep0997 Conditional support for Option 9 [subject to:- exploration of other options; masterplan-led Noted. See Volume 1. Mr Tom Aspinall development; provision of fully funded new school, healthcare, amenities and transport infrastructure; provision of additional parking]. PORep0998 Conditional support for Option 13 [subject to: - development leads to end of HGV traffic; relief Noted. See Volume 1. Mrs Mary Kidwill road leads development; provision of additional healthcare and school capacity]. PORep0999 Conditional support for Option 12 [subject to:- provision of leisure facilities]. Object to Option 13 As part of the consultation the Mrs Tanya Trayner [poor linkages with surrounding areas; site contamination; lack of infrastructure capacity; Councils Planning Policy team cumulative impact of existing major infrastructure proposals]. Object to Option 14 [conflict with consulted the Councils

Classification: OFFICIAL 129 Classification: OFFICIAL

Name Summary of Representation Officer Response Green Belt purposes]. Environmental Health team to determine whether any of the options identified have land contamination issues; these comments will be fully considered when determining the likely suitability of these options. PORep1000 Object to Option 11 [impact on traffic congestion; loss of open space; impact on air pollution; See Volume 1. Ms Margaret Lamb impact on noise pollution].

Classification: OFFICIAL 130