Sustainability Appraisal for Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils

Regulation 18 Green Belt Preferred Options

September 2017

Regulation 18 – Green Belt Preferred Options

LC-330 Document Control Box

Client Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils

Sustainability Appraisal of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Report Title (Regulation 18) Green Belt Preferred Options

Status Final

Filename LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS

Date September 2017

Author DS

Reviewed JE

Approved ND

Cover Photo: Looking East across option ‘National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter’

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Purpose of this report ...... 3 1.3 About the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2014-2036 ...... 4 1.4 The Regulation 18 Consultation ...... 4 1.5 The SA Process ...... 4 1.6 An integrated approach to Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment ...... 5 1.7 Best practice guidance ...... 5 1.8 Using this document: ...... 6 2 Methodology ...... 8 2.1 Approach to assessment ...... 8 2.2 Appraisal process ...... 9 2.3 Geographic scale ...... 13 2.4 Impact magnitude ...... 13 2.5 Significance ...... 14 3 Assumptions and limitations to assessment ...... 16 3.2 SA Objective 1: Cultural Heritage ...... 16 3.3 SA Objective 2: Landscape ...... 17 3.4 SA Objective 3: Biodiversity ...... 17 3.5 SA Objective 4: Climate Change Mitigation ...... 18 3.6 SA Objective 5: Climate Change Adaption ...... 19 3.7 SA Objective 6: Natural Resources ...... 19 3.8 SA Objective 7: Pollution ...... 20 3.9 SA Objective 8: Waste ...... 20 3.10 SA Objective 9: Transport and Accessibility ...... 21 3.11 SA Objective 10: Housing ...... 21 3.12 SA Objective 11: Health ...... 22 3.13 SA Objective 12: Employment ...... 22 4 Pre-Mitigation Assessment Findings ...... 23 4.2 North East of Chesham – Option 1 ...... 25 4.3 Area South of Holmer Green – Option 2 ...... 29 4.4 Area East of Hazlemere – Option 3 ...... 33 4.5 Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town – Option 4 ...... 36 4.6 Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town – Option 5 ...... 39 4.7 Area South of Little Chalfont – Option 6 ...... 42 4.8 National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter – Option 7 ...... 45 4.9 Area South East of Chalfont St Peter – Option 8 ...... 48 4.10 Area East of Beaconsfield – Option 9 ...... 51 4.11 Land North of Denham Roundabout – Option 10 ...... 55 4.12 Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood – Option 11 ...... 58 4.13 Area West of Iver Heath – Option 12 ...... 61 4.14 Area North of Iver Station – Option 13 ...... 64 4.15 Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver – Option 14 ...... 68 4.16 Land Adjacent to Taplow Station – Option 15 ...... 72 5 Summary of Pre-Mitigation Findings ...... 75 5.2 Summary of Sustainability Performance Against SEA Topics ...... 76 5.3 Housing ...... 76

5.4 Biodiversity ...... 76 5.5 Population and Human Health ...... 77 5.6 Soil ...... 77 5.7 Water ...... 78 5.8 Air ...... 78 5.9 Climatic Factors ...... 79 5.10 Cultural Assets ...... 79 5.11 Landscape ...... 79 6 Mitigation Recommendations ...... 80 6.2 Mitigation recommendations for SA Objectives ...... 81 6.3 SA Objective 1: Cultural Heritage ...... 82 6.4 SA Objective 2: Landscape ...... 82 6.5 SA Objective 3: Biodiversity ...... 83 6.6 SA Objective 4: Climate Change Mitigation ...... 84 6.7 SA Objective 5: Climate Change Adaptation ...... 85 6.8 SA Objective 6: Natural Resources ...... 85 6.9 SA Objective 7: Pollution ...... 86 6.10 SA Objective 8: Waste ...... 86 6.11 SA Objective 9: Transport and Accessibility ...... 87 6.12 SA Objective 10: Housing ...... 88 6.13 SA Objective 11: Health ...... 89 6.14 SA Objective 12: Economy ...... 89 7 Post-Mitigation Assessment ...... 91 8 Monitoring ...... 92 8.2 Monitoring Proposals ...... 93 9 Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 94 9.2 Next steps ...... 94

Appendices

Appendix A: SA Framework

Tables, Boxes and Figures

Figure 1.1 Stages of the SA process and Local Plan preparation

Figure 4.1 Green Belt preferred options 1 – 9

Figure 4.2 Green Belt preferred options 7 – 15

Table 2.1 Guide to impact significance matrix

Table 2.2 Geographic scale

Table 2.3 Impact magnitude

Table 2.4 Guide to terms used in the significance matric

Table 3.1 Sustainable distances to facilities and amenities

Table 5.1 Summary of pre-mitigation scores

Box 2.1 Annex II of the SEA Directive

Plate 1 North East of Chesham

Plate 2 Area South of Holmer Green

Plate 3 Area East of Hazlemere

Plate 4 Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town

Plate 5 Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town

Plate 6 Area South of Little Chalfont

Plate 7 National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter

Plate 8 Area South East of Chalfont St Peter

Plate 9 Area East of Beaconsfield

Plate 10 Land North of Denham Roundabout

Plate 11 Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood

Plate 12 Area West of Iver Heath

Plate 13 Area North of Iver Station

Plate 14 Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver

Plate 15 Land Adjacent to Taplow Station

Acronyms

A&E Accident and Emergency

ALC Agricultural Land Classification

ANS Archaeological Notification Option

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

BNS Biological Notification Option

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GI Green Infrastructure

GP General Practitioner

LCA Landscape Character Assessment

LWS Local Wildlife Option

MWCS Minerals and Waste Core Strategy

NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

PDL Previously Developed Land

PPG Planning Practice Guidance

PRoW Public Right of Way

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SPZ Source Protection Zone

Executive Summary

E1 Lepus Consulting Ltd (Lepus) has been instructed by Chiltern District Council (CDC) and South Bucks District Council (SBDC) to undertake a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of potential Green Belt removal locations within the districts to inform the emerging Local Plan.

E2 This SA report presents an assessment of the potential Green Belt removal locations with the following intentions:

• To identify where the development is likely to result in significant effects and inform mitigation; and • To inform the options for a potential Green Belt removal location and help guide the Councils’ selection of a preferred location.

E3 The following 15 options are assessed against twelve SA Framework Objectives, taking account of the topics listed in Annex 1(f) of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. These include:

1. North East of Chesham; 2. Area south of Holmer Green; 3. Area East of Hazlemere; 4. Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town; 5. Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town; 6. Area South of Little Chalfont; 7. National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter; 8. Area South East of Chalfont St Peter; 9. Area East of Beaconsfield; 10. Land North of Denham Roundabout; 11. Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood; 12. Area West of Iver Heath; 13. Area North of Iver Station; 14. Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver; and 15. Land Adjacent to Taplow Station.

E4 Development at all options is likely to have a negative impact on biodiversity, climate change mitigation, cultural heritage and waste objectives. Climate change adaptation, transport and accessibility, health and economy objectives were positive for the majority of options. All options, except those designated for employment use, are expected to make a substantial and positive contribution to meeting the housing needs of the districts. The landscape objective received mixed scores across the options. Assessment of the SA Objectives for natural resources, pollution, economy and transport and accessibility yielded mixed scores overall, but with several options anticipated to perform well for these objectives.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

E5 Mitigation recommendations are offered at a high level which are likely to result in improvements upon SA Objective scores at Green Belt preferred options. Option-specific mitigation recommendations are to be offered later in the Local Plan production process upon the release of more detailed design proposals. If mitigation recommendations and strategies are successfully adhered to the sustainability performance of all options has the capacity to improve.

E6 Monitoring suggestions are made with the intention to develop an understanding of whether this assessment’s predictions of sustainability effects are accurate, in addition to the performance of mitigation strategies and whether remedial action is required for any unforeseen adverse effects which may occur.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Lepus Consulting Ltd (Lepus) has been instructed by Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils to undertake a SA of the joint Local Plan to cover the period 2014 to 2036. This document presents assessment findings in relation to the consideration of reasonable alternatives for development locations within the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan.

1.1.2 Please note that this document does not constitute an Environmental Report in line with the SEA Directive1. It is a record of assessments of reasonable alternatives (options) for housing and employment options in the Chilterns and South Bucks area, spatial strategy distribution options and options to consider the needs of gypsies, travellers and travelling show people.

1.2 Purpose of this report

1.2.1 This report has been prepared to help inform the Councils’ preparation of their joint Local Plan. More specifically this document aims to inform the review of the Green Belt, within this Local Plan. The Councils intend to produce a draft Local Plan for public consultation in 2017 prior to submission later in 2017. The timetable maybe subject to review.

1.2.2 Article 5(1) of the SEA Directive states that:

‘Where an environmental assessment is required under Article 3(1), an environmental report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated. The information to be given for this purpose is referred to in Annex I.’

1.2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 11-018- 20140306 states that:

1 European Directive 2001/24/EC

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

‘Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker in developing the policies in its plan. They must be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made. The alternatives must be realistic and deliverable.’

1.3 About the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2014-2036

1.3.1 The Local Plan will seek to deliver sustainable, high quality, designed development that respects valued and quality environments, not just the countryside but equally the character and setting for towns and villages and the wealth of natural and heritage assets. It will also seek to maximise development opportunities locally whilst maintaining the important function and purpose of the Green Belt.

1.4 The Regulation 18 Consultation

1.4.1 Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council have been preparing replacement separate Local Plans for their respective adopted Core Strategies and saved Local Plans and to roll the plan period forward to 2036. For both Councils, this included a ‘Regulation 18’ consultation to seek initial views on the scope of the plans and to identify issues to be resolved. This was accompanied by a ‘Call for Options’, an opportunity for potential development options to be nominated for consideration as part of the Local Plan processes, in early 2015.

1.4.2 The Councils have prepared the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation (October – December 2016) document by drawing on earlier Regulation 18 consultation responses, studies and evidence base work undertaken to inform plan-making and discussions under the Duty to Co-operate.

1.5 The SA Process

1.5.1 This report is one of a series of reports that have been prepared to facilitate an iterative and informative approach to SA, in line with the SA process (see Figure 1.1). A Regulation 18 assessment SA of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan including reasonable alternatives was undertaken in January 2016. Earlier SA work took place in November 2015. The title of this SA report was Sustainability Appraisal of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Initial Consultation (Regulation 18) Incorporating Issues and Options.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

1.6 An integrated approach to Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment

1.6.1 The European Union Directive 2001/42/EC or ‘SEA Directive’ applies to a wide range of public plans and programmes on land use, energy, waste, agriculture, transport etc. (see Article 3(2) of the Directive for other plan or programme types). The SEA procedure can be summarised as follows: an environmental report is prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment and the reasonable alternatives of the proposed plan or programme are identified. The public and the relevant environmental authorities are informed and consulted on the draft plan or programme and the environmental report prepared. Further details on methodology are explained in Chapter 2.

1.6.2 The Directive has been transposed into English law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA Regulations, SI no. 1633).

1.6.3 Under the requirements of the SEA Directive and SEA regulations, specific types of plans that set the framework for the future development consent of projects, must be subject to an environmental assessment. Therefore, it is a legal requirement for the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan to be subject to SA and SEA throughout its preparation.

1.6.4 SA is a UK-specific procedure used to appraise the impacts and effects of development plans in the UK. It is required by S19 (5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and should be an appraisal of the economic, social and environmental sustainability of development plans. The present statutory requirement for SA lies in The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. SEA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed plans or programmes to ensure environmental issues are fully integrated and addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision- making.

1.7 Best practice guidance

1.7.1 The requirements to carry out SA and SEA are distinct, although it is possible to satisfy both obligations using a single appraisal process. Government policy recommends that both SA and SEA are undertaken under a single SA process, which incorporates the requirements of the SEA Directive. The approach for carrying out an integrated SA and SEA is based on the PPG.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

1.8 Using this document:

1.8.1 This SA report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the SA methodology; • Chapter 3 presents the assumptions and limitations of the assessment; • Chapters 4 presents the assessments of each Green Belt preferred options; • Chapter 5 presents a summary of pre-mitigation findings; • Chapter 6 presents mitigation recommendations; • Chapter 7 present post-mitigation findings; • Chapter 8 presents monitoring proposals; and • Chapter 9 presents conclusions and next steps

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Figure 1.1: Stages of the SA process and its relationship to Local Plan Preparation2

2 DCLG (2014) National Planning Practice Guidance - Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

2 Methodology

2.1 Approach to assessment

2.1.1 The approach to assessment uses geographic information, the SA Framework and established standards (where available) to help make the assessment decisions transparent and robust. The Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation (October – December 2016) details a Preferred Options Proposal for each option, this information is regarded as the most accurate development proposal for each option unless otherwise stated. This document also identifies Requirements as part of any Development, Infrastructure Requirements and Additional Outstanding Matters for each option. These are separate from the Preferred Options Proposal, so are not considered within the pre- mitigation assessments.

2.1.2 All options have been assessed against the SA Framework (see Appendix A). The SA Framework is composed of objectives and decision-aiding questions. Acting as yardsticks of sustainability performance, the SA Objectives are designed to represent the topics identified in Annex 1(f)3 of the Directive. Including the SEA topics in the SA Objectives helps ensure that all of the environmental criteria of the SEA Directive are included. Consequently, the twelve SA Objectives seek to reflect all subject areas to ensure the assessment process is transparent, robust and thorough.

2.1.3 To expand on the central focus of each SA objective (as they are high- level and potentially open-ended) the SA Framework includes a series of questions or ‘decision making criteria’ for use when applying the SA Framework to the assessment of options or proposed policies.

2.1.4 The purpose of the SA Framework is to provide a way of ensuring that the proposed plan considers each option on a fair and consistent basis.

2.1.5 It should be noted that the ordering of the SA Objectives does not infer any prioritisation.

3 Annex 1(f) identifies: ‘the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors’.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

2.2 Appraisal process

2.2.1 The appraisal process has used the SA Framework, the review of plans, programmes and policies and the baseline (including various mapped data sources), as presented in the SA Scoping Report4 (Lepus, 2015), to assess each option. Assessments have been undertaken using this empirical evidence and, to a lesser extent, expert judgement. Option visits were undertaken in August 2017. No data collection was undertaken during these visits.

2.2.2 Limitations in terms of the level of detail and confidence of assessment are cited in the explanatory text; the worst case scenario has been assumed in accordance with the precautionary principle5.

2.2.3 The first stage of assessment involves answering each of the decision- aiding questions in the SA Framework in turn with a yes (+), no (-), uncertain (+/-) or negligible / no effect / not applicable (0). The results of this indicate whether the scenario is likely to bring positive, negative or uncertain effects in relation to the SA Objectives. This information is then used to inform the overall effect of the option on the SA objective.

2.2.4 The second stage of assessment considers the level of significance of the effects identified in the first stage (described above). Leading from the likelihood of positive or negative effects, the assessment draws on criteria for determining the likely significance of effects referred to in Article 3(5) of the SEA Directive and presented in Annex II of the Directive (see Box 2.1). The majority of identified positive or negative effects can be considered to be significant. Any assessment rated as negligible is not considered to represent a significant effect. The extent of significance is perhaps most helpfully expressed by orders of magnitude.

2.2.5 At a strategic level, it can be difficult to assess significant effects in the absence of widespread data. Instead, orders of magnitude are used, based on geographic significance and impact magnitude. Table 2.1 illustrates such orders of magnitude for positive and negative effects.

4 Lepus Consulting (November 2015) Sustainability Appraisal of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan: Scoping Document 5 The Precautionary Principle states that, in the absence of scientific evidence or consensus, the worst case scenario is assumed.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

2.2.6 Each of the effects identified in the first stage of assessment are assigned a colour and corresponding symbol to reflect the level of significance of the effect and whether it is positive or negative. Orders of magnitude are not assigned to uncertain effects. A single value from Table 2.1 is allocated to each SA Objective and presented in the narrative text of the report.

2.2.7 When selecting a single value to best represent the sustainability performance of the relevant SA Objective, the Precautionary Principle is used. This is a worst-case scenario approach. Values presented at the first stage of assessment (see the questions in the SA Framework) are used to determine whether the single value for the SA Objective is positive, negative, uncertain or neutral.

2.2.8 If a positive effect is identified in relation to one question and a negative effect is identified in relation to another question within the same SA Objective, that objective will be given an overall negative value.

2.2.9 During the first stage of assessment, where an uncertain value has been recorded for a question, the post-mitigation stage of assessment will consider the uncertainty in terms of the nature of the question and the assessor’s valuation in the context of the SA question and objective. On this basis, it is possible that either a positive or negative single value can now be recorded.

2.2.10 Assessment results are presented in a single matrix format with accompanying narrative text to interpret the sustainability performance of each option.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Table 2.1: Guide to impact significance matrix

Impact magnitude

Adverse Positive Neutral or Uncertain negligible High Medium Low Low Medium High

International / Major Major Moderate Moderate Major Major 0 +/- National (High) ------++ +++ +++ Geographic Regional Major Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Major scale 0 +/- (Medium) ------+ ++ +++ (Sensitivity) Local Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate 0 +/- (Low) -- - - + + ++

2.2.11 Whilst the orders of magnitude are determined by impact magnitude and geographic significance or sensitivity, the determination of impact takes into consideration the characteristics of the resultant effect as presented in Box 2.1.

2.2.12 As demonstrated in Table 2.1, significance is determined by the sensitivity or geographic scale of the receptor and the impact magnitude. The coloured boxes represent the level of significance of the predicted effect. The text in each of these boxes describes the level of significance, whilst the plus (+) and minus (-) symbols, along with the colours, give a visual representation of this.

2.2.13 Geographic scale relates primarily to the level of importance of the receptor, or the level at which it is designated, if applicable. Geographic scale may also refer to the physical area of the receptor, or the part of the receptor likely to be affected (see section 2.3).

2.2.14 Impact magnitude relates to the degree of change the receptor will experience, including the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects (see Box 2.1).

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Box 2.1 Annex II of the SEA Directive

Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects referred to in Article 3(5) of the SEA Directive

The characteristics of plans and programmes, having regard, in particular, to

• the degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocating resources;

• the degree to which the plan or programme influences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy;

• the relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development;

• environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme;

• the relevance of the plan or programme for the implementation of Community legislation on the environment (e.g. plans and programmes linked to waste- management or water protection).

Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard, in particular, to

• the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects;

• the cumulative nature of the effects;

• the transboundary nature of the effects;

• the risks to human health or the environment (e.g. due to accidents);

• the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected);

• the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to:

• special natural characteristics or cultural heritage;

• exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values;

• intensive land-use;

• the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

2.3 Geographic scale

2.3.1 Impact assessment in the SA considers a range of geographic scales and sensitivities at which the impact and subsequent effects might be experienced. A guide to the range of scales used in the impact significance matrix is presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Geographic scales

Sensitivity Typical criteria

The international level is aimed at designations that have an international aspect or consideration of transboundary effects International / beyond national boundaries. This also applies to predicted National effects at the national level or designations/receptors that have a national dimension.

This includes the regional and sub-regional scale, including Regional county-wide level, the HMA and regional areas such as the West Midlands.

Local This is the district and neighbourhood scale.

2.4 Impact magnitude

2.4.1 Impacts are assessed by combining judgements about susceptibility to the type of change arising from the specific proposal with judgements about the value attached to the receptor (see Table 2.3).

2.4.2 On a strategic basis, the appraisal considers the degree to which a location can accommodate change without detrimental effects on known receptors (identified in the baseline) and the degree to which individual receptors will be affected by the change. This is determined by considering factors included in Annex II of the SEA Directive.

2.4.3 SA and SEA are concerned with likely significant effects. As such, if an effect is considered improbable, it will not be considered in the assessment. It is considered that most effects cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, as many impacts depend on design of development and may be subject to mitigation.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Table 2.3: Impact magnitude

Magnitude of Typical criteria Effect Likely total loss of or major alteration to the receptor in question. OR High Provision of a new receptor / feature OR The impact is permanent and frequent.

Partial loss of / alteration / improvement to one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of the receptor in question. OR Medium The impact is one of the following: • Frequent and short-term • Frequent and reversible • Long-term (and frequent) and reversible • Long-term and occasional • Permanent and occasional

Minor loss / alteration / improvement to one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of the receptor in question.

Low OR The impact is one of the following: • Reversible and short-term • Reversible and occasional • Short-term and occasional

2.5 Significance

2.5.1 By combining the assessment of geographic scale and magnitude of impact it is possible to predict the significance of a proposal. Significance can be categorised as minor, moderate or major. The nature of the effect can be either beneficial or adverse depending on the type of development and the design and mitigation measures proposed. Table 2.1 is a matrix for identifying significant environmental effects; it combines the criteria used to define impact magnitude with receptor sensitivity and geographic scale, in order to arrive at a judgement of the likely level of significance. Terms used in the table are explained in Table 2.4.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Table 2.4: Guide to terms used in the significance matrix

Significance Definition

Major adverse The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • permanently degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of the receptor; • cause a very high quality receptor to be permanently changed and its quality diminished; • cannot be fully mitigated and may cumulatively amount to a severe adverse effect; • be at a considerable variance to the location, degrading the integrity of the receptor; or • will be substantially damaging to a high quality receptor such as a specific regional or national designation. Moderate adverse The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • be out of scale with the location; or • leave an adverse impact on a receptor of recognised quality such as a specific district or county designation. Minor adverse The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • not quite fit into the existing location or with existing receptor qualities; • affect undesignated yet recognised receptor qualities at the neighbourhood scale. Minor beneficial The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • improve undesignated yet recognised receptor qualities at the neighbourhood scale; • fit into or with the existing location and existing receptor qualities; • enable the restoration of valued characteristic features partially lost through other land uses. Moderate beneficial The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • fit very well with the location; • improve one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of a receptor with recognised quality such as a specific district or county designation. Major beneficial The size, nature and location of a proposed scheme would: • enhance and redefine the location in a positive manner, making a contribution at a national or international scale; • enhance and redefine the location in a positive manner; • repair or restore receptors badly damaged or degraded through previous uses; and • improve one or more key elements/features/ characteristics of a receptor with recognised quality such as a specific regional or national designation.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3 Assumptions and limitations to assessment

3.1.1 There are a number of limitations which should be borne in mind when considering the results and conclusions of this assessment.

3.1.2 SA is a tool for predicting potential significant effects. Prediction of effects is made using an evidence based approach and incorporates a judgement.

3.1.3 The assessments below are based on the best available information, including that provided to us by the client team and information that is publicly available. Every attempt has been made to predict effects as accurately as possible using the available information.

3.1.4 Distances have been measured from the centre of the option to the centre of the receptor unless otherwise stated. This has been measured as the crow flies, as it is not possible to know the routes of roads and footpaths through the development options at this stage. Distances to facilities and amenities have been considered sustainable if they are within the maximum recommended distances stated in Barton et al (2010)6.

3.1.5 Cumulative effects are not assessed in this document. As this document represents the reasonable alternatives stage, it is not known which of the options presented will be carried forward to the next stage of plan making. Cumulative and/or in-combination effects cannot be assessed without knowing which options and policies will be in the final plan.

3.2 SA Objective 1: Cultural Heritage

3.2.1 It is assumed that all historic statutory designations, including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, will not be lost to development. The effects of a development on the setting of such historic asset designations will depend substantially on design.

6 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for local health and global sustainability, Spon Press

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.2.2 Assessments showing a negative effect on cultural heritage occur where development is likely to affect the setting of the historic asset, with the severity of the effect assigned based on the sensitivity of the historic asset in question.

3.2.3 Options containing, or in close proximity to, areas of archaeological interest such as an Archaeological Notification Option (ANS) should undergo further archaeological assessment to determine the potential adverse effects which development may have in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.

3.2.4 Buckinghamshire County Archaeological Service maintain the local Historic Environment Record and, overall, have no fundamental objections to proposed areas. Some options have had archaeological evaluation where archaeological remains have been recorded, and all options are anticipated to undergo further evaluation. It is expected than mitigation will take place in areas identified to be of archaeological interest should development go ahead.

3.3 SA Objective 2: Landscape

3.3.1 The strength and intactness of the landscape character as listed in the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) has been used to inform assessment as to the significance of any impacts that development may have on the local landscape.

3.3.2 All options have been had reconnaissance visits to appreciate scale and salient character. The Councils have commissioned a landscape capacity study for each of the 15 Green Belt options, which were available in draft at the time of writing and should be used to review and refine the high- level SA findings presented in this report.

3.4 SA Objective 3: Biodiversity

3.4.1 Option visits did not involve any surveying or recording of habitat or species at any option. Best available desktop data has been used to inform option assessments. Ecological surveys of options would further inform assessments.

3.4.2 Loss of ancient semi-natural woodland and ancient replanted woodland represents a permanent loss and cannot be mitigated or re-created.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.4.3 Without species-specific data for each option, assessment of impacts has concentrated on habitat presence and diversity. The following assumptions apply:

• Great Crested Newts are associated with ponds, lakes and other suitable water features; • Bats are associated with mature woodland, certain buildings, quarries and caves; • Reptiles are associated with railway embankments, allotments, quarries and rough grassland; • Dormice are associated with coppiced woodland and mature hedgerows, especially ancient semi-natural woodland, in the vicinity of suitable woodland locations; • White-Clawed crayfish are associated with freshwater streams, rivers, canals and lakes; • Badgers are associated with banks, arable and pasture farmland and grassland; • Breeding and wintering birds are associated with woodland, trees, wet grassland, hedgerows, and other shrubby structures; • Otters are associated with freshwater habitats, particularly rivers. • Water voles are associated with vegetated river, stream, canal, ponds and ditch banks; • For the purpose of this document, habitats of principal importance are those listed under s.41 of the NERC7 Act; and • For the purpose of this document, species of principal importance are those listed under s.41 of the NERC8 Act.

3.5 SA Objective 4: Climate Change Mitigation

3.5.1 Factors considered for the climate change mitigation assessment of each option include the level of anticipated personal car use for prospective residents, the anticipated net loss or gain of Green Infrastructure (GI) (for its natural air filtering and carbon sink qualities), and overall level of development. It is assumed that larger developments will have a greater adverse impact upon climate change mitigation.

7 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents 8 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.6 SA Objective 5: Climate Change Adaption

3.6.1 The level of fluvial and pluvial flood risk present at each site is based on the Environment Agency’s flood risk data. Development located on land at higher risks of flooding are considered to be less well equipped to deal with the impacts of future climate change and extreme weather.

3.7 SA Objective 6: Natural Resources

3.7.1 It is assumed that development within the Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area will sterilise important mineral resources. Further investigation of the mineral resources available at options within the mineral safeguarding is recommended to ensure protection of these resources.

3.7.2 It is assumed that development on Previously Developed Land (PDL) (brownfield) is preferable, provided that it is not of high environmental value. This is in accordance with the core planning principles of the NPFF.

3.7.3 The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system forms part of the planning system in England and Wales. It classifies agricultural land into five categories according to versatility and suitability for growing crops. The top three grades, Grade 1, 2 and 3a, are referred to as 'Best and Most Versatile' land. Grade 4 and 5 are described as poor quality agricultural land and very poor quality agricultural land.

3.7.4 Where it is not known whether an option is classified as Grade 3 under the ALC system is Grade 3a or 3b, for the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that they are within Grade 3a, in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.

3.7.5 There is no water available for licensing in either the Colne or the Thames catchment area. Flows of the rivers in this catchment are likely to be below the requirement to meet Good Ecological Status. Both the Colne catchment and the Thames catchment have low resources reliability, with consumptive resource available less than 30% of the time. Due to the limited water resource of the River Colne, the Environment Agency is investigating abstraction licenses within these waterbodies. This will lead to a series of actions to improve sustainability of water abstraction and to increase the ecological status of waterbodies. It is assumed that all housing proposals in the Local Plan will be subject to appropriate approvals and licencing for sustainable water supply from the Environment Agency.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.8 SA Objective 7: Pollution

3.8.1 It is assumed options of historic landfill are generally not suitable for residential development, but may offer good options for areas of designated public open space within developments. Further assessment is recommended in order to fully understand the suitability of these options for redevelopment in relation to soil contamination and levels of gas leakage.

3.9 SA Objective 8: Waste

3.9.1 It is assumed that development will be aligned with the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (MWCS) Development Plan Document (2012)9 and Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework.

3.9.2 It is assumed that all options will contribute towards waste challenge for the county, as identified in the MWCS: ‘Move away from over-reliance on landfill for disposal of waste’.

3.9.3 Waste management higher up the waste hierarchy is deemed preferable, such as favouring prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste, with energy recovery and disposal seen as less favourable.

3.9.4 Proximity to existing household waste and recycling facilities are listed within option assessments as it is not currently known where new facilities of this type will be incorporated into developments. Waste generation per capita is not generally expected to increase, as any new residents are expected to live similar lifestyles to existing residents. However, larger developments are anticipated to have a greater adverse impact upon reducing waste generation and disposal, and achieving the sustainable management of waste. Employment options have been scored as uncertain, as levels of waste are dependent upon the business who occupy the option following development.

9 Buckingham Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document (November 2012)

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.10 SA Objective 9: Transport and Accessibility

3.10.1 For the purpose of this assessment, distances to nearest bus stops and train stations are included for each option. Sustainability of these distances is assessed in line with Barton et al (2010) 10 ; 400m is the recommended distance for walking to a bus stop, and 1km is used for train stations.

3.10.2 It is assumed that bus stops correspond with low positive magnitude as impact is likely to be short term, and at a local scale. Train stations are assumed to correspond with medium magnitude as impact is likely to be long term, and at a regional scale.

3.10.3 There is an assumption that the majority of residents moving into new residential developments will own a car or other private vehicle. There is an assumption that car use is likely to be lower if local services and amenities are close enough to be accessible by foot or if there are good links to sustainable modes of transport, including the Public Right of Way (PRoW) network and bus network.

3.10.4 At this stage, there is not sufficient information available to be able to accurately predict the effect of new residential development on the capacity of local schools. This would require a breakdown of proposed residential tenure types and the number of bedrooms per dwelling. It would also require a start date for the occupation of the dwellings. As such, at this stage the SA assesses whether there are publically available and accessible schools in the local area.

3.11 SA Objective 10: Housing

3.11.1 It has been assumed that on options considered for housing allocations, existing residential estates will be retained. This assumption has not been applied to options being considered for employment use.

3.11.2 It is assumed that residential developments will contribute to meeting the housing needs over the plan period, including good quality and affordable housing.

10 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for local health and global sustainability, Spon Press

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

3.12 SA Objective 11: Health

3.12.1 Employment options have been assessed as neutral for SA Objective 11, however the explanatory narrative is included as this may still be informative.

3.12.2 It has been assumed that the PRoW network will be retained or re-routed around the option.

3.12.3 Barton et al (2010)11 gives target distances and maximum distances to certain facilities and amenities as shown in Table 2.5. Information regarding nearest medical facilities is provided by NHS Find Services and is measured as a straight-line distance. Public transport travel times are calculated using Google Maps and are subject to the availability and frequency of the local services.

Table 3.1: Sustainable distances to facilities and amenities Barton et al (2010)12. Features Optimal distance Target distance Local park/greenspace 400m 600m Leisure centre 1.5km 2km General Practitioner’s (GP) surgery 800m 1km Hospital with Accident and Emergency 5km 8km services (A&E)

3.12.4 Hospitals without accident and emergency facilities may be available much closer to options, however these are not included in accordance with Barton et al (2010)13.

3.13 SA Objective 12: Employment

3.13.1 It has been assumed that all current employment options will be retained, with the exception of farm and agricultural land.

11 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for local health and global sustainability, Spon Press 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4 Pre-Mitigation Assessment Findings

4.1.1 This chapter sets out the SA of the following 15 Green Belt preferred options are also visible in Figures 4.1 and 4.2:

1. North East of Chesham;

2. Area south of Holmer Green;

3. Area East of Hazlemere;

4. Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town;

5. Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town;

6. Area South of Little Chalfont;

7. National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter;

8. Area South East of Chalfont St Peter;

9. Area East of Beaconsfield;

10. Land North of Denham Roundabout;

11. Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood;

12. Area West of Iver Heath;

13. Area North of Iver Station;

14. Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver; and

15. Land Adjacent to Taplow Station.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Figure 4.1. Green Belt preferred options 1 – 9

Figure 4.2. Green Belt preferred options 7 - 15

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.2 North East of Chesham – Option 1

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

ion

te Was Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdapt Climate ------+ - - - + +++ ++ +

4.2.1 North East of Chesham is a 57.26ha option located in the Green Belt, 26.1ha is considered developable. The option is situated within Lye Green Road, Lycrome Road and Nashleigh Hill. The proposed development will comprise residential development, associated infrastructure and open space. There is also potential to include a local centre and to accommodate a Gypsies and Travellers site within the preferred option. The majority of the option is currently in agricultural use, with some areas of undeveloped grassland and pockets of woodland.

Plate 1: Looking south across option called ‘North East of Chesham’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 There is one Listed Building within the option, the Grade II Listed White House, with a further four Grade II Listed Buildings within 100m of the option boundary. It is anticipated that the setting of one or more of these cultural and historic assets may be adversely affected. A medieval pottery, designated as an ANS, exists adjacent to the north of the option, therefore prior archaeological assessment is advisable.

SA2 This option is located close to the Chilterns AONB potentially adversely affecting the setting of the AONB14 due to change in landscape character and associated visual impact. Landscape character is distinctly rural, and generally without distinctive relief, gently undulating with fields of rough pasture, arable crops, hedgerows and trees forming the dominant character features. Several public footpaths traverse this option, the views from which may be adversely affected by development. In terms of built form, the option is crossed by pylons, which are a visual detractor, along with some telegraph poles. There are also several properties either within the option’s footprint or visible on the edge of the option. These elements reduce some of the option’s otherwise high quality landscape value. Views into, through and across the option from the edge of the option as well as the public rights of way that cross it will change significantly with the introduction of new housing at this location. The LCA description for 16.5 Ashley Green Settled Plateau15 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is moderate.

SA3 Habitats present at this option include mature priority woodland, arable fields, hedgerows and ponds. There are several areas of woodland which are likely to have the greatest biodiversity value, although the connectivity of these habitats is relatively poor. This includes a broadleaved woodland in the west of the option, designated as a Biological Notification Option (BNS), which is vulnerable to disturbance from development. The current agricultural use of the option is not conducive of high biodiversity, although some hedgerows exist within this agricultural area which may be adversely affected by development. If not carefully protected, development at this location is likely to reduce the current quality of principal habitats which is not in line with the biodiversity action plan for the area16. Any species of principal importance associated with the habitats present will also be adversely affected.

SA4 Overall, residents are anticipated to have a high level of personal car use. (see SA Objective 9). A significant amount of GI is anticipated to be lost resulting in a reduction in the natural air filtering qualities and some of the carbon sink in the local area. The likely population increase of over 2,000 in the local area is predicted to increase energy demands and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions significantly.

14 Chilterns AONB Conservation Board (2011) Position Statement - Development affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB (Adopted June 2011, Rev 1) 15 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Ashley Green Settled Plateau. Character Area No 16.5. Land Use Consultants P74.

16 Forward to 2020 Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan (2014)

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding. It is likely that the option will experience a loss of GI functionality, although some GI is expected to be retained. Surface water run off may represent an additional flood risk, however the extent of this risk is not currently known.

SA6 There are pockets of PDL and existing buildings within the option, although the majority are already used for residential purposes. The option is almost entirely located upon land with an ALC of Grade 3. A small area of historic landfill (Lye Green) exists in the east of the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development. The option is located on land which is thought to have brick clay mineral deposits which could be seen as valuable to the area.

SA7 Chesham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is designated for NO2 from road transport and is situated 600m from the option at the nearest point. An increase in population could cause further road congestion and therefore exacerbate this air pollution. The large proposed scale of development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. The option is adjacent to Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 3 therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers, although the option is within a drinking water safeguard zone. A small area of historic landfill (Lye Green) exists in the east of the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development. Overall, the large scale of development and increase in population is likely to exacerbate pollution issues in at and around the option.

SA8 The scale of development is likely to result in increased amounts of waste produced within the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found south east Chesham, approximately 3.5km from the option.

SA9 Chesham Railway Station connects with the London Metropolitan line, offering good sustainable transport links, however it is 2.5km away for some prospective residents. Regular bus services to Uxbridge and Amersham are available from Lycrome Road and Nashleigh Hill at the perimeter of the option. A range of key services and amenities are anticipated to be approximately 2km away for the majority of residents, however bus routes do serve some of these locations. The PRoW network around the option is good, with several footpaths allowing walking and cycling access to the immediate area. An electric car charging point can be found in Chesham which has the potential to facilitate more sustainable car use. Due to the topography of Chesham, residents are anticipated to have a high level of personal car use.

SA10 Approximately 900 dwellings are proposed for the 26.1ha of developable land, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable. The councils believe this could also include accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and provide options for elderly and self-build housing.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA11 The majority of residents are anticipated to be within 1km of the Gladstone Road Doctors Surgery in Chesham. The nearest hospital with A&E is Watford General Hospital, over 15km away, a journey of 1 hour and 22 minutes by public transport. Stoke Mandeville Hospital also offers A&E services at a similar distance from the option. Several areas of public open space can be found within 600m of the option boundaries to the west and south east, however residents in the north of the option may have more diminished access. The majority of residents are anticipated to be within 1.5km of the variety of leisure and fitness facilities that can be found within Chesham. The development is also expected to include areas of public open space, leisure facilities and possibly new health facilities which would further improve the health and wellbeing of prospective residents.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is anticipated to be good, with good opportunities in Chesham, in addition to further employment areas which are accessible by sustainable transport means. There are primary and secondary schools within the target distances with Brushwood Junior School and Chiltern Hills Academy within 1km and 2km of all residents respectively, however capacity issues at these schools need to be addressed. A local centre with retail units within the proposed development would further develop the economy within the area.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.3 Area South of Holmer Green – Option 2

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

hange hange Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Adaptation Geodiversity Climate C Climate Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility O - - -- + - - - -- +++ ++ +

4.3.1 Area South of Holmer Green is a 17.63ha option located in the Green Belt, 12.2ha of this is considered developable, with 9ha anticipated to be for residential development with the remaining proposed to be used for a new primary school. The option is defined as the area within Amersham Road, Earl Howe Road, Orchard Way and Skimmer’s Field. This option is adjacent to a 19ha option within Wycombe District which is also proposed for removal from the Green Belt and subsequent development. Should this option be progressed, it has been expressed that the two Councils will work closely to ensure the two developments are designed and constructed harmoniously. The option comprises grassland with some wooded areas and was used by 100 Penny Acres Farm, although planning permission has been granted to allow conversion of the farm building into a residential property in the south of the option. The south eastern area of the option is developed, with temporary and permanent structures present.

Plate 2: Looking north across option called ‘Area South of Holmer Green’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA2 This option is adjacent to the Chilterns AONB and development could affect the setting of the AONB, although this is thought to be a less sensitive location than others in such close proximity due to the barrier of the A404 road and proximity of other built form to the north, east and west. This option is gently undulating, with several landscape features that create an enclosed or open landscape depending on where the view is taken. Hedgerows and orchard features help define the character. Orchards are a recognised component part of Buckinghamshire’s GI network and are declining in general, so their presence should be recognised as an important feature the loss of which would be considered negative. The LCA description for 18.2 Penn Rolling Farmland 17 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is strong. Notwithstanding the impact on the AONB, which at best would be minor adverse, this location can possibly hold a moderate level of houses with an appropriate design taking account of nearby existing built form and housing layout. The loss of orchard should be minimised to strengthen the GI network and development at this location should seek to retain this important GI asset.

SA3 No nature conservation designations are present within the option, although a large area of Ancient Woodland, designated as a local wildlife option (LWS) exists approximately 130m to the south and east which may be subjected to increased recreational pressure should development go ahead. Development at this location is likely to result in the loss of mature hedgerows and rough grassland. Some habitats of principal importance are present at the option and it is likely that these may be lost if the option were to be developed. Any species of principal importance associated with these habitats may also be lost

SA4 Prospective residents are anticipated to have a high personal car use (see SA Objective 9). The large increase in population in the local area is predicted to increase energy demands. This, along with the loss of GI, will reduce the climate change mitigation capabilities of the area.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding. The intended inclusion of green space at this location is likely to help the option to adapt in the unlikely event of increased flood risk.

SA6 There is some PDL within the option which may be available for redevelopment. The option is almost entirely located upon land with an ALC of Grade 3. The option is located on land which is assessed to have brick clay mineral deposits

17 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Penn Rolling Farmland. Character Area No 18.2. Land Use Consultants P94.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

which could be seen as valuable to the area. A significant pollution incident at this option was recorded by the Environment Agency in 2012. This pollution event caused a significant impact to land and minor impacts to air and water. It is not yet known whether this has been remediated. Development may, therefore, result in reclamation or remediation of polluted land, this could be investigated prior to development.

SA7 The majority of the option is within Groundwater SPZ 3 therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored as part of any development proposals at this option. Prospective residents of the option are expected to have relatively high personal car use, which is likely to cause increased air pollution. A significant pollution incident at this option was recorded by the Environment Agency in 2012. This pollution event caused significant impact to land and. Overall, the large scale of development and increase in population is likely to have an adverse impact upon pollution at the option.

SA8 The scale of development is likely to result in increased amounts of waste produced within the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found south of Amersham approximately 7.5km away.

SA9 Great Missenden and High Wycombe are the closest railway stations to the option, although both are over 4km away. A regular bus service to High Wycombe operates along Browns Road, with approximately half of residents anticipated to be within 400m. Amenities and services are limited in the local area. The nearest electric car charging point is over 4km away in High Wycombe. These factors are likely to contribute to high personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 Approximately 300 dwellings are proposed for the 12.2ha of developable residential land, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable. Travelling Showpeople needs will also be accommodated within the option.

SA11 All residents are anticipated to be within 1km of one of several GP surgeries within the local area. The closest hospital with A&E services is Stoke Mandeville Hospital, over 15km away at the farthest point, a journey of 1 hour and 24 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside. There is abundant public open space, with areas to the north east and south west which are easily accessible for prospective residents. There are also plans for inclusion of a children’s playground and functional open spaces within the development to increase this further. Holmer Green Sports Association Is found less than 1km north of the option, and a golf club, football pitches and stables are also accessible.

SA12 Access to employment in the immediate area is likely to be limited. Further employment opportunities are likely to be found in the surrounding areas, much of which is accessible by public transport, although these services are outside of target distances. There are primary and secondary schools within the target distances with Holmer Green Junior School and Holmer Green Senior School within 1km and 2km of all residents respectively. In addition to this a new primary school is proposed within the development. Development is likely to

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

increase pressure on schools and additional premises are anticipated to be required, either in form of new build or the expansion of existing facilities. A local centre with retail units within the proposed development would significantly develop the economy within the area.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.4 Area East of Hazlemere – Option 3

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural imate Change Adaptation Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Cl Biodiversity and Geodiversity and Biodiversity O ------+ - -- - - +++ ++ -

4.4.1 Area East of Hazlemere is a 9.22ha option located in the Green Belt. The developable area of which is considered to be 6.67ha and is likely to include open space and improvements to infrastructure. The option is situated east of Hazlemere Road, whilst adjacent to the north west is an 8.24ha option within Wycombe District which is also being considered for removal from the Green Belt and subsequent development. The Chiltern District option carry forward is dependent on the Wycombe District option being removed from the Green Belt in the Wycombe District Local Plan. Should this option be progressed, it has been expressed that the two Councils will work closely to ensure the two developments are designed and constructed harmoniously. The option is currently arable land with a small number of residential properties.

Plate 3: Looking north east across option called ‘Area East of Hazlemere’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 A suspected Earthwork Enclosure lies within Common Wood, 150m from the perimeter of the option. This Earthwork Enclosure is an ANS, however it is suspected that the dense tree cover now present at the option will have damaged any remaining archaeological features. No further information is available at the time of writing, therefore further archaeological assessment is recommended to establish the potential impact which development at the option may cause to this ANS or whether any further archaeological assets are present in the in the area.

SA2 This option is located wholly within the Chilterns AONB adjacent to Tyler’s Green, part of Hazlemere. Development would be anticipated to have an adverse impact upon the landscape character of the AONB designation at this location. The option is strongly associated with the rural and wooded character of the land to the west of the B474 road. Part of the option is covered in ‘pony paddocks’ which can be considered visual detractors. The LCA description for 18.2 Penn Rolling Farmland18 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is strong.

SA3 No nature conservation designations are present within the option, although large areas of Ancient Woodland, designated as an LWS exist adjacent to the north, south and east of the option which may be subjected to increased recreational pressure should development go ahead. Pollution and disturbance from construction would also be likely to adversely affect the habitats present here in the short term. Development at this location may result in the loss of mature hedgerows which act as a buffer to the ancient woodland areas, in addition to important trees and small areas of rough grassland. It is likely that some habitats of principal importance are present at the option and would be lost if the option were to be developed. Any species of principal importance associated with these habitats may also be lost.

SA4 Overall, residents are anticipated to have a high personal car use (see SA Objective 9). The likely population increase of over 400 in the local area is predicted to increase energy demands which will increase GHG emission levels.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 There are very limited pockets of PDL or existing building within the option. However, the option is almost entirely located upon non-agricultural land according to the ALC. The option is located on land which is assessed to have brick clay mineral deposits which could be seen as valuable to the area.

18 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Penn Rolling Farmland. Character Area No 18.2. Land Use Consultants P94.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 The majority of the option is within Groundwater SPZ 3 therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by future option developers, although the option is within a drinking water safeguard zone. Prospective residents of the option are expected to have relatively high personal car use, which may cause increased air pollution. Overall, the large scale of development and increase in population is likely to have an adverse impact upon pollution at and around the option.

SA8 The large scale of development is likely to result in a small increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found south of Amersham approximately 7.5km away.

SA9 High Wycombe is the closest railway station to the option, over 4km away to the south west for some prospective residents. A regular bus service to High Wycombe, Hazlemere and Penn operates along Hazlemere Road which is adjacent to the West of the option. Access to amenities and services within the area is poor. The PRoW network around the option is adequate, potentially allowing walking and cycling instead of personal car use for some journeys, with a public footpath running through the centre of the option. The nearest electric car charging point is in High Wycombe, over 4km away. Overall, residents are anticipated to have a high personal car use.

SA10 Approximately 200 dwellings are proposed for the 6.67ha of developable residential land, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable.

SA11 All residents are anticipated to be within 1km of one of the several GP surgeries within the local area. The closest hospital with A&E services is Wexham Park Hospital, over 15km away at the farthest point, a journey of 1 hour 19 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers adequate access into the surrounding countryside, with a public footpath running through the centre of the option. There is accessible public open space in the area, with a large area to north. There are also plans for inclusion of a children’s playground and functional open spaces within the development to increase this further. There are several existing sports and leisure facilities in the local area, including the nearby Hazlemere Golf Course. Tennis, football and cricket facilities are also accessible. Prospective residents are therefore anticipated to have good overall health and wellbeing.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is limited, with few employment opportunities in the immediate area. High Wycombe is likely to provide further employment opportunities, and is accessible by public transport, although these services are outside of target distances. There are primary and secondary schools within the target distances with Manor Farm Community Junior School and Sir William Ramsay School within 1km of all residents. No substantial loss of employment space is expected to occur through development at the option.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.5 Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town – Option 4

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate ------++ ++ + +

4.5.1 Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town is a 9.66ha option located in the Green Belt, of which 1.8ha is considered developable. The option is situated between London Road West and the A413. Development would be for residential purposes, to include open space whilst retaining the existing residential and commercial uses at the option. Based on more detailed design layout proposals, residential development is expected to be within two pockets, one in the south west of the option, and one in the east. The option currently consists of undeveloped greenfield, arable land, woodland and a public path, with the River Misbourne also running through the eastern area of the option.

Plate 4: Looking east across option called ‘Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town;

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 The Amersham Historic Core Archaeological Notification Option (ANS) is partly within the option, with three Grade II Listed Buildings in this area. A further three Grade II Listed Buildings lie within 100m of the perimeter, although all the Listed Buildings are situated away from the proposed pockets of residential development. There is another ANS (Roman Villa) to the south east of the option, in close proximity to the eastern pocket of proposed residential development. These cultural assets are likely to be wholly or partially affected by development.

SA2 The majority of this option is within the Chilterns AONB. Development at this location would change the countryside to a less rural character, and have distinctive visual impacts since the land is characterised by sloping topography, pasture, hedgerows, the River Misbourne, a small area of woodland and limited built form. The valley sides are in contrast to the valley bottom and edge of town built form, distinguished by their agricultural land use. It is noted that the LCA seeks to avoid large-scale development, which is out of keeping with the existing scale of built form. Impacts on visibility are likely to be experienced from surrounding roads, employment options, houses and the South Bucks Way which passes through the centre of the option. The LCA description for 13.5 Misbourne Upper Chalk River Valley19 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is moderate.

SA3 A number of habitats are present on option, including an area of mixed woodland, permanent pasture, mature hedgerows and a ditch. Hedgerows at the option create habitat corridors increasing habitat connectivity. There are no biodiversity designations associated with this option. Development may result in the loss of hedgerows, mixed woodland or other habitats of principal importance and thus the species of principal importance that may rely on them.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have a low personal car use (see SA Objective 9). Minor losses of GI are likely as a result of development. The relatively small increase in population and moderate scale of development should only have a small impact on energy consumption and traffic and GHG emissions, therefore development at the option will have a small adverse overall impact on the climate change mitigation capabilities of the region.

SA5 Part of this option is coincident with Flood Zones 3a and 3b around the River Misbourne. Any development in Flood Zone 3 is associated with a high risk of flooding. The proposed pockets of residential development avoid these high-risk areas in the most part but due to an increase in hard standing, surface water runoff is likely to increase.

SA6 The option is entirely located on urban land according to the ALC, although it is almost entirely undeveloped. The limited pockets of PDL and existing buildings within the option are not coincident with the proposed residential developments.

19 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

The option is located on land which is assessed to have brick clay mineral and chalk deposits which could be seen as valuable to the area.

SA7 The option is within Groundwater SPZs 2 and 3 therefore there is a small risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. The River Misbourne runs through the option which could also be susceptible to water pollution during construction. Prospective residents of the option are expected to have relatively low personal car use, however increased GHG emissions due to increased population is likely. Noise and air pollution from traffic may be problematic from the main roads surrounding the option which are understood to experience periodic high levels of congestion20.

SA8 The moderate scale of development is likely to result in a small increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found south of Amersham approximately 1.7km away.

SA9 Amersham Railway Station is within 1km of the option, offering sustainable transport to Aylesbury and London. A regular bus service to High Wycombe, Chesham, Amersham and Slough operates from London Road West adjacent to the option. The nearest supermarket is expected to be within 1km for all residents, with a wide range of amenities and services on High St and The Broadway, west of London Road West. The PRoW network around the option allows good access to amenities and services, with two public footpaths running through the centre of the option. The nearest electric car charging point is within Amersham, less than 1km away. Transport access from the option is excellent, resulting in low anticipated personal car use by prospective residents, although congestion on the main roads around the option is seen to be a problem21.

SA10 Approximately 50 dwellings are proposed for the 1.8ha of developable residential land, it is expected at least 50% should be affordable.

SA11 All residents are anticipated to be within 1km of a GP surgery. The closest hospitals with A&E services are Watford General Hospital and Wexham Park Hospital, over 13km away at the farthest point, both journeys approximately 55 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers excellent access into the surrounding countryside, with a public footpath running through the centre of the option. There are areas of accessible public open space to the north west of the option, and one to the east, with further public open space anticipated as part of the development. Chiltern Pools Leisure Centre is within 1.5km of the option. The proximity to major roads and the resultant air pollution may adversely affect the health of prospective residents.

20 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report 21 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.6 Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town – Option 5

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

ape Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landsc Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate ------+ -- - - ++ ++ + +

4.6.1 Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town is a 5.99ha option located in the Green Belt, 2.2ha of which is considered to be developable for residential purposes, with the remainder being proposed for use as publically accessible open space to address increased pressures on open space deficiencies in the settlement. The option is situated between Whielden Street and the A413. Residential development is expected to be within two pockets, one in the south west of the option, and one in the north. The option is currently undeveloped greenfield land with areas of woodland and hedgerows around the perimeter.

Plate 5: Looking north east across option called ‘Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 The Amersham Historic Core ANS is partly within the option. Numerous Grade II Listed Buildings and the Grade II* Listed Friends' Meeting House and Whielden Cottage are within 100m of the option boundary. These cultural assets are likely to be wholly or partially affected by development. Amersham Hill conservation area is also within close proximity to the option boundary, views into and out of this conservation area may be adversely affected.

SA2 The majority of this option is within the Chilterns AONB, albeit that the size of the parcels is small and further work would be required to establish what contribution this option is currently making towards the AONB and its setting. The option is also located close to a number of listed buildings as well as the Amersham Old Town Conservation Area, features which increase the landscape and visual sensitivity of development at this location. Chalk grassland, which appears to be semi-improved is likely to have biodiversity value, and it is distinctive as a landscape feature since semi-improved grassland is visually different to arable fields and improved grassland found elsewhere around Amersham. The land slopes steeply and would be unlikely to avoid adverse landscape and visual effects if development were to be located at this location as it rises above Amersham Old Town. The LCA description for 13.5 Misbourne Upper Chalk River Valley22 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is moderate.

SA3 A number of habitats are present at option, including an area of mixed woodland, chalk grassland, and mature hedgerows resulting in relatively high biodiversity at the option (see Plate 5). Hedgerows at the option create habitat corridors, increasing habitat connectivity. There are no biodiversity designations associated with this option. Development may result in the loss of hedgerows, mixed woodland, chalk grassland or other habitats of principal importance and species of principal importance that may rely on them.

SA4 Overall, prospective residents are anticipated to have low personal car use (see SA Objective 9). The moderate scale of development will increase the energy demands of the area, and thus increase GHG emissions.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 The option is mostly located on urban land according to the ALC, with a small area of Grade 3 Agricultural Land to the south of the option. However, there are very limited pockets of PDL or existing buildings within the option, none of which are coincident with the proposed pockets of residential development. The option is located on land which is assessed to have brick clay mineral and chalk deposits which could be seen as valuable to the area.

22 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 The option is within Groundwater SPZ 3 therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. Prospective residents of the option are expected to have relatively low personal car use, therefore local air quality should remain good. Noise and air pollution from traffic may be problematic from the main roads surrounding the option which are seen to be highly congested23.

SA9 Amersham Railway Station is within 1km of the option, offering sustainable transport to Aylesbury and London. A regular bus service to High Wycombe, Chesham, Amersham and Slough operates from London Road West. The nearest supermarket is expected to be within 1km for all residents, with a wide range of amenities and services on High St and The Broadway, west of London Road West. The PRoW network allows good access to services and amenities, with two public footpaths running through the centre of the option. The nearest electric car charging point is within Amersham, less than 1km away. Overall, prospective residents are anticipated to have low personal car use.

SA10 Approximately 80 dwellings are proposed for the 2.2ha of developable residential land, the extent of affordable housing is expected to be 40%. This is anticipated to include residential development and open space.

SA11 All residents are anticipated to be within 1km of a GP surgery. The closest hospitals with A&E services are Watford General Hospital and Wexham Park Hospital, over 13km away at the farthest point, both journeys approximately 55 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers excellent access into the surrounding countryside, with public footpaths running through the centre of the option. There are several areas of accessible public open space to the north of the option. Chiltern Pools Leisure Centre is within 1.5km of the option. The proximity to major roads and the associated potentially adverse air pollution may affect the health of prospective residents.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with sustainable transport links to major employment regions. Development is not anticipated to result in the loss of any employment space at the option. The moderate scale of development is likely to have a small positive impact upon the local economy.

23 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.7 Area South of Little Chalfont – Option 6

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

llution Waste Health Housing Po Economy Landscape Adaptation Geodiversity Climate Change Climate Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility O - -- -- + - - - ++ +++ - +

4.7.1 Area South of Little Chalfont is a 51.22ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is not yet known. The option is situated between Burtons Lane, Long Walk and Lodge Lane. Development is expected to include open space, specialist accommodation for the elderly, local centre(s), employment space, associated infrastructure and community facilities. The councils suggest that here is also potential to include Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and areas for self-build homes. The option is a former golf course. Currently the eastern area of the option is occupied by a car body shop and civil engineering firm at Honours Yard, whilst the remainder of the option is undeveloped greenfield land with hedgerows and large areas of woodland.

Plate 6: Looking east across option called ‘Area South of Little Chalfont’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA2 This option is characterised by gently undulating topography and various land uses including a former golf course and some built form although the option is overall quite enclosed with limited visual sensitivity, with the exceptions of views likely to be experienced from the footpaths that cross the option. The option is part of the setting for the Chilterns AONB and as such any development at this location would need to make the most of the woodland and trees that help enclose this location. Development surrounds the location, whilst vegetation makes up the boundary of the option, meaning that there is scope to contain development within this location. The LCA description for 18.3 Little Chalfont Rolling Farmland24 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is moderate.

SA3 A number of habitats are present at the option, including mature hedgerows, rough grassland and scrub. In addition to this, there are several pockets of woodland, including two stands of Ancient Woodland. These woodland areas are likely to have high biodiversity, in addition to providing important habitat connectivity through the option. Development at this location is anticipated to result in the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland which must be protected as per the NPPF. The loss of such habitats may also result in the loss of species of principal importance which may be associated with them.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have moderate personal car use (see SA Objective 9). However, the construction at this large scale is anticipated to cause significant GHG emissions during construction and result in notably higher energy demands in the area. In addition to this, significant anticipated loss of GI is likely to result in a reduction in natural air filtering qualities and some of the carbon sink in the local area.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 The option is mostly located on Grade 3 agricultural land, whilst the northern part of the option is designated as urban land. A car body shop and scrap yard is present in the south-eastern area of the option which represents the only area of PDL present. Development could reclaim or remediate any soil contamination or pollution associated with this use of the option, although none has been reported.

24 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Little Chalfont Rolling Farmland. Character Area No 18.3. Land Use Consultants P101.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 A car body shop and scrap yard is present in the south-eastern area of the option, which may mean that development could reclaim or remediate any soil contamination or pollution that has occurred coincidently with this use of the option, although none has been reported. The option is within Groundwater SPZ 2 therefore there is a small risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. Air pollution is thought to be low at the option with no major roads within the area. However, air, light and noise pollution from the adjacent rail lines may be of concern to prospective residents.

SA8 The large scale of development is likely to result in a significant increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found in Chesham approximately 2.6km away.

SA9 Chalfont & Latimer Railway Station is within 1km of the option, offering sustainable transport to Aylesbury and London. A regular bus service to Watford and Chesham operates from Amersham Road, with majority of prospective residents anticipated to be within 400m. Amenities and services within the local area are slightly limited, although plans for inclusion of these within the proposed development may improve access to these for both existing and prospective residents. The PRoW network around the option is good, offering walking or cycling access into Little Chalfont and the surrounding countryside. The nearest electric car charging point is within Little Chalfont, less than 1km away. These factors are likely to contribute to moderate personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 Approximately 1,000 dwellings could be developed at the option, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable. The councils have suggested that, if required, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation may also be incorporated within the option, in addition to specialist accommodation for the elderly and options for self-build accommodation.

SA11 Approximately half of prospective residents are anticipated to be within 1km of a GP surgery. The closest hospital with A&E services is Watford General Hospital, over 11km away at the farthest point, a journey of 45 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside, with public footpaths running through the centre of the option. There are no leisure centres within an accessible distance, however football and tennis clubs are available at Little Chalfont Park within an accessible distance. However, current design proposals are set to incorporate public open space within the new development.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with sustainable transport links to major employment regions. The scale of development may attract additional investment to the area. Development may result in the loss of employment space at the option, with the car body shop likely to be affected, although this could be offset by new employment space within the development. Honours Yard may be retained, resulting in no anticipated employment losses.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.8 National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter – Option 7

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

l Heritage Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultura Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate - + - -- + -- - - - + + +

4.8.1 National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter is a 27.97ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is estimated to be approximately 3ha. Development is expected to include a Care Home and specialist accommodation for the elderly. This development is likely to facilitate the needs of some local elderly residents to downsize properties in line with the Chalfont St. Peter Neighbourhood Plan, whilst enabling the use of specialist facilities and the National Epilepsy Centre itself. The majority of the option is used by the Epilepsy Society, including allotments and greenhouses in the north of the option and permanent buildings in the west. The south-eastern area of the option has a large new development including residential and commercial space. The remaining land is undeveloped greenfield separated by hedgerows and pockets of woodland.

Plate 7: Looking east across option called ‘National Epilepsy Centre Chalfont St Peter’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 There are five Grade II Listed Buildings within the option, all associated with the National Epilepsy Centre. Development is anticipated to adversely affect the setting of one or more of these cultural assets.

SA2 This option is characterised by mostly flat topography, pasture, arable land, hedgerows, residential properties and gardens, small pockets of woodland, grassland and PDL. The LCA description for 22.2 Chalfont St Peter Mixed Use Terrace25 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak. This option is partially screened by hedgerows with trees leading to restricted visibility from adjacent roads and residential properties. The option would potentially improve in terms of landscape with development.

SA3 A number of habitats are present on option, including mature hedgerows, scrub, woodland and permanent pasture. Development at this location may result in the loss of habitats of principal importance and any species of principal importance which may be associated with them. Hedgerows in particular are likely to increase biodiversity and offer habitat connectivity within the option.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have a high personal car use (see SA Objective 9), although elderly residents may be less likely to rely on a car. In addition to this, the anticipated losses of GI resulting in a reduction in the natural air filtering qualities and some of the carbon sink in the local area will further inhibit the area’s abilities to mitigate climate change.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 The option is partially located on Grade 3 agricultural land, whilst the western part of the option is classed as urban land. There are large areas of PDL at the option, however it is currently unknown whether these areas will be developed or not. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources.

SA7 The option is primarily within Groundwater SPZ 3, with small areas of Groundwater SPZ 2, therefore the risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers is low. Air pollution is thought to be low at the option with no major roads within the area, although loss of GI and anticipated high car use by prospective residents (see SA Objective 9) is likely to negatively impact air quality.

25 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Chalfont St Peter Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No. 22.2. Land Use Consultants. P149.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA8 Development is likely to result in a minor increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found south of Amersham approximately 6km away.

SA9 The nearest railway stations are Gerrards Cross, Seer Green and Chorleywood all approximately 4km from the option. Bus services to Slough and Amersham are available within 400m of the option, although these are irregular. Amenities and services within the local area are very limited. The PRoW network around the option is good with two footpaths running through the option offering walking or cycling access into surrounding areas. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 1km from the option. These factors are likely to contribute to high personal car use by prospective residents, although elderly residents may be less likely to rely on car use.

SA10 The number of dwellings to be constructed through development at this location is not currently known, although there is substantial scope to cater for some of the elderly housing needs of the district.

SA11 There are no GP surgeries within 1km of the option, with the nearest being approximately 1.3km to the south west, which is anticipated to be an issue for the prospective elderly residents. However, other medical facilities associated with the National Epilepsy Centre are present at the option which may be available for use. The closest hospital with A&E services is Wexham Park Hospital, approximately 10km away at the farthest point, a journey of 40 minutes by public transport. As the option is allocated for elderly residents it is anticipated that further specialist facilities will be made available. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside. There is public open space within and adjacent to the north of the option. There is a leisure centre approximately 2km from the option, with tennis and cricket facilities also accessible in the local area.

SA12 With the majority of prospective residents expected to be elderly, access to employment and education facilities are not of significant importance, however there are good opportunities in the local area should they be required. However, areas of employment are not easily accessible by public transport methods.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.9 Area South East of Chalfont St Peter – Option 8

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollutio Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeAdaption Climate Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility O - - -- + -- - - + +++ ++ +

4.9.1 Area South East of Chalfont St Peter is a 13.71ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is estimated to be 12ha. The option is situated east of Denham Lane. Development is expected to be for residential purposes, including associated open space, necessary infrastructure and other requirements. The north eastern area of the option is currently occupied by Winkers Nightclub, with the remainder of the option being fields and grassland separated by single species landscaped hedgerows. There is a scout camp immediately adjacent to the south east of the option.

Plate 8: At the perimeter of option called ‘Area South of Chalfont St Peter’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 Chalfont Park and House ANS is adjacent to the south of the option, which includes 4 Grade II Listed Buildings. The setting of these cultural assets is not anticipated to be adversely affected due to screening by vegetation.

SA2 This option is characterised by flat topography, pasture, hedgerows and scrub. The former nightclub and single dwelling represent built form on the option. The South Bucks Way long distance path crosses the option, introducing visual impact considerations. The option is generally enclosed and is bordered to the north and west by residential dwellings. Development could be carefully embedded into parts of this location without significant change to character or wider visual context. The LCA description for 22.2 Chalfont St Peter Mixed Use Terrace26 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak.

SA3 Habitats present at the option include mature hedgerows and rough grassland, with coniferous and broadleaved trees at some of the perimeter of the option. No biodiversity designations are associated with the option. Hedgerows are present at the option; however, these are single species landscaped hedgerows which are unlikely to hast significant biodiversity.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have a low personal car use (see SA Objective 9). However, the anticipated losses of GI resulting in a reduction in the natural air filtering qualities and some of the carbon sink in the local area may inhibit the area’s abilities to mitigate climate change. Traffic congestion is thought to be a problem in the area27. Despite the sustainable transport services available this is expected to worsen should development go ahead. The significant population increase is anticipated to result in increased energy demands and GHG emissions.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 This option contains Grade 3 agricultural land. It is unknown whether this is Grade 3a (which is considered best and most versatile) or Grade 3b land (which is not). As such it is uncertain whether development would lead to loss of best and most versatile land. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources. There are limited areas of PDL at the option, with Winkers Nightclub and car park likely to be available for redevelopment.

26 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Chalfont St Peter Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No. 22.2. Land Use Consultants. P149. 27 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 The option is within Groundwater SPZ 2, therefore there is a small risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. The M25 is approximately 700m from the option, with other congested roads also thought to be present within the area, potentially leading to poor air quality to affect prospective residents.

SA8 The large scale of development is likely to result in a significant increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. However, the closest household waste and recycling centre is found south of Amersham, approximately 6km away.

SA9 The nearest railway station is Gerrards Cross, approximately 2km from the option at the farthest point. Irregular bus services to Slough, Chalfont Common and Amersham are available from Copthall Lane approximately 400m from the option. A range of amenities and services can be found in Chalfont St Peter, approximately 1km form the option. The PRoW network around the option is good, offering walking or cycling access into surrounding areas. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 1km from the option. These factors are likely to contribute to relatively low personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 Approximately 420 dwellings could be developed at the option, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable.

SA11 There are two GP surgeries in Chalfont St Peter, although these are just outside of the 1km target distance from the option. The closest hospital with A&E services is Wexham Park Hospital, approximately 8km away at the farthest point, a journey of 47 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside. There is public open space available to the north and south of the option. There is a leisure centre approximately 2km from the option, with tennis and cricket facilities also accessible within the local area.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable transport means. No jobs are expected to be lost due to development at the option. There are both primary and secondary schools within the target distances.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.10 Area East of Beaconsfield – Option 9

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste ollution Health Housing P Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate - +/- -- -- + - - -- ++ +++ ++ +++

4.10.1 Area East of Beaconsfield is a 117.39ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is currently undefined. The option is expected to be mixed use and is to include residential development, 5ha of employment space, specialist accommodation for the elderly, sports facilities (retention of existing and newly built), shopping and community services, associated open space and necessary infrastructure. Additionally, there is the possibility for accommodation of Gypsy and Travellers and self-build houses. This large option includes Wilton Park with extensive sports fields, open space, a lake and wooded areas. There are several small residential areas, several businesses including a nursery and an automotive company, and a closed former military base also at the option. Wilton Park Supplementary Planning Document, which has been subject to an SA28, establishes the principles that will guide the future redevelopment of Wilton Park.

Plate 9: Looking south east across option called ‘Area East of Beaconsfield’

28 Envision Sustainability (2013) Wilton Park Development Brief Draft Supplementary Planning Document Sustainability Appraisal Report

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 Several cultural and historical assets are situated to the west of the perimeter of the option, including Beaconsfield Town Historic Core ANS, Beaconsfield Conservation Area and numerous Grade II and II* Listed Buildings, although these are set across a single carriageway road, amongst existing built form. Historic assets are located outside of the option’s perimeter, to the west nestled amongst existing buildings. Without an option layout plan, it is not clear whether the setting of these receptors will be affected either in positive or adverse ways.

SA2 This relatively large option is characterised by a wide range of landscape features, making parts of the option more sensitive than others. Further more detailed landscape work is required to better appreciate the landscape impacts at this location. Land use types include PDL, pasture, amenity grassland, hedgerows, woodland, residential properties and gardens, each with varying degrees of landscape and visual sensitivity. The LCA description for 22.1 Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace 29 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak. Public footpaths cross through this option. Development may encroach on those features identified in the character assessment30, such as small pockets of ancient woodland and the hedgerow network in particular, which provide and maintain the remaining areas of tranquillity. This option is partially screened with trees leading to restricted visibility from adjacent roads and residential properties but also somewhat open in for example the north west.

SA3 There are several areas of Ancient Woodland within the option which could be adversely affected by development. The Birchlands Woods BNS is located adjacent to the west of the option. Habitats present at the option which could be adversely affected by development include woodland, ponds and hedgerows. Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (also a SSSI and National Nature Reserve) is situated approximately 2km south of the option. Should development go ahead at the option, increased recreational pressure and traffic on the A355 could result in an adverse effect upon the habitats and species located here. Bower and Burtley Woods LWS, located south across the M40 from the option, could also be similarly affected.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have moderate to high personal car use (see SA Objective 9). However, the very large scale of development, in addition to the significant anticipated losses of GI resulting in a reduction in the natural air filtering qualities and some of the carbon sink in the local area, may inhibit the area’s abilities to mitigate climate change.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite significant losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

29 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No. 22.1. Land Use Consultants. p.143. 30 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA6 This option contains Grade 3 agricultural land. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources. There are several areas of PDL at the option, although it is unclear whether there is scope to utilise these for the proposed development. A significant pollution event took place at the option in 2005, with an impact to soil but not to air or water31. It is unknown whether remediation has taken place for this. Investigations should be made into this prior to development, but there may be an opportunity to reclaim or remediate this polluted land.

SA7 The option is within Groundwater SPZ 3, therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. The South Bucks AQMA is designated

for NO2 associated with the M40 to the south of the option, is less than 50m from some areas of the option. The potentially large proposed scale of development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. A significant pollution event took place at the option in 2005, with an impact to soil but not to air and water, it is unknown whether remediation has taken place for this. Investigations should be made into this prior to development, but there may be an opportunity to reclaim or remediate this polluted land.

SA8 The very large scale of development is likely to result in a significant increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. However, the closest household waste and recycling centre is found in Beaconsfield approximately 1.5km away.

SA9 The nearest railway stations are Beaconsfield and Seer Green and Jordans, therefore the majority of prospective residents will be within 1km, although some residents in the southern areas of the option are anticipated to have more diminished access. Regular bus services to Slough, Uxbridge, Heathrow and High Wycombe run from London Road adjacent to the option. A range of amenities and services can be found locally in Beaconsfield. The PRoW network around the option is good, meaning walking and cycling may be preferred options for residents. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 1km west of the option. Despite these factors, access to railway stations, proximity to the M40 and affluence of residents may result in moderate to high personal car use. Traffic congestion is thought to be a problem in the area32. Despite the sustainable transport services available this may worsen should development go ahead.

SA10 Approximately 1700 dwellings could be developed at the option, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable. The councils suggest that development is

31 Environment Agency (2005) Whats in My Back yard, incident number 320268. Available at: http://maps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/queryController?topic=pollution&ep=2ndtierquery&lang=_e&layerGroups=5&x=4 95374.0&y=190187.0&extraClause=PIN_NO~320268&textonly=off&latestValue=&latestField= 32 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

also expected to provide for the residential needs of the elderly and Gypsies and Travellers within the local area, in addition to options for self-build houses.

SA11 There is a GP surgery within Beaconsfield which is anticipated to be within 1km of all prospective residents. The closest hospital with A&E services is Wexham Park Hospital, approximately 8km away at the farthest point, a journey of 44 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside. There are several areas of public open space within the option which may be removed through development, however several further areas are also available. There is a leisure centre approximately 2km from the option, with tennis and cricket facilities also accessible within the local area with a golf course to the north and a park to the east of the option. Proximity to major and busy roads may have an adverse effect on residents’ health and wellbeing.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable transport means. 5ha of employment space is anticipated within the development which should provide further opportunities to existing and prospective residents and more than offset any onsite employment which may be lost due to development. There are both primary and secondary schools within the target distances, although a development on this scale may require further provisions in order to meet the education needs of all prospective residents.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.11 Land North of Denham Roundabout – Option 10

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

ation

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeAdaption Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdapt Climate

O + - - + -- --- +/- + O O +++

4.11.1 Land North of Denham Roundabout is a 4.6ha option located in the Green Belt, all of which is considered suitable for employment development subject to NPPF sequential test. The option is situated north of the M40 Junction 1 roundabout. Development is expected to include offices and ancillary uses within a landscaped setting, as well as the necessary infrastructure. The option is a large open field which is occasionally used to provide parking for car boot sales.

Plate 10: Looking west across option called ‘Land North of Denham Roundabout’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 There is an ANS directly adjacent to the east of the option on the other side of Denham Court Drive, recorded as ‘Roman Settlement’. However, based on current information from archaeological assessments and the local Historic Environment Record, no significant damage to cultural or archaeological assets is anticipated through development at this location.

SA2 This option is a flat open grassland space used for car boot sales. The wider setting in urbanised and visual detractors such as pylons, street lights and road infrastructure influence the character. The LCA description for 26.3 Colne Valley Floodplain33 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak. This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park and development at this location could lead to a partial loss of this regionally important resource however the option does not make a significant contribution at present. Sensitively designed employment land with plenty of associated GI would benefit this location.

SA3 The option lies within the Colne Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Area, therefore development at the option may represent a missed opportunity for a location of enhanced biodiversity in the local area. It is thought that biodiversity is currently low at the option, however there are options of nature conservation interest in the surrounding areas which could potentially be affected by development at the option.

SA4 Prospective employees are anticipated to have moderate personal car use unless they are residents of the urban settlements immediately to the north of the option (see SA Objective 9).

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite minor losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding, subject to NPPF sequential test.

SA6 According the ALC this option contains Grade 1 agricultural land, it is therefore considered to be some of the best and most versatile soil in the district. However, the location appears to be unsuitable for agriculture and is not currently used for this purpose. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources. There is no PDL at the option.

SA7 The South Bucks AQMA is designated for NO2 and is associated with the M40 to the south of the option. Some of the option is within the AQMA, whilst the entire option is within 200m of it, therefore air quality and noise pollution is anticipated to be an issue at this location. Development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. Development is likely to increase traffic in the area, especially at peak times.

33 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Colne Valley Floodplain. Character Area No. 26.3. Land Use Consultants. p.121.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA8 The amount of waste produced at this option following development is dependent on the businesses occupying it.

SA9 The majority of prospective employees will be within 2km of the nearest railway station in Denham. Regular bus services to Uxbridge, Denham, Beaconsfield and Heathrow operate from within 400m of the option. Amenities and services are limited in the local area, with the nearest supermarket, along with the nearest electric car charging point, found in Uxbridge, approximately 2km south east of the option. The PRoW network from the option is poor. These factors are likely to contribute to relatively high personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 The proposed development is for office buildings, with an imposition of a planning condition on any conversion of the office buildings to residential use in the future also likely. Therefore, no contribution to the housing needs of the district is expected from development at the option.

SA11 There are no GP surgeries within the local area, with the nearest options within Uxbridge and Denham. The closest hospital with A&E services is the Hillingdon Hospital, approximately 5km away at the farthest point, a journey of 28 minutes by public transport. Public open space is available within close proximity to the option, deemed important for the mental and physical heath of prospective employees at the option34. The proximity to major and busy roads may have an adverse effect on the health and wellbeing of prospective employees at the option.

SA12 The option is allocated for employment purposes and is therefore anticipated to contribute towards meeting the employment needs of the district. No existing jobs are expected to be lost through development at the option.

34 Time (2017) What Green Spaces Can Do to Your Mood http://time.com/4881665/green-spaces- nature-happiness/

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.12 Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood – Option 11

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

nd Accessibility nd Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversity Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport a Transport Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate

O - - -- + ------++ ++ +++

4.12.1 Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood is a 19.41ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is 16.01ha. The option is situated west of Church Road and south of the M25. Development could be mixed use which could include residential development, office space, necessary infrastructure and associated open space. Development could include industrial, commercial or film uses. Any development at the option could be expected to be delayed until after 2025 so as to avoid contributing to existing construction-related traffic to committed developments in the area. This option is largely made up of publicly accessible open fields, with a small gated urban settlement, Laurel Court, in the east of the option.

Plate 11: Looking west across option called ‘Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA2 This relatively enclosed option is characterised by gently undulating topography, arable land, small pockets of woodland, hedgerows, residential properties and gardens. The LCA description for 22.4 Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace35 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak. Development may encroach on those features identified in the character assessment36 such as hedgerows in particular. However, existing residential areas to the south, Pinewood Studios to the east and M25 to the north already reduce the distinctive character of the landscape. This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park. This option is well screened with trees leading to restricted visibility from adjacent roads and residential properties, although development may encroach upon the existing gated residential community at the option.

SA3 The option is within South Bucks Heaths and Parklands Biodiversity Opportunity area, therefore development at the option may represent a missed opportunity for a location of enhanced biodiversity in the local area. The habitats currently present include woodland, hedgerows, arable fields and ditches. Development at the option would be likely to result in the loss of habitat connectivity and potential loss of habitats of principle importance, along with the species associated with these.

SA4 Prospective residents and occupiers are anticipated to have a high personal car use (see SA Objective 9). Small losses of GI would also contribute negatively towards limiting the area’s contribution to climate change, whilst energy consumption and GHG emissions are anticipated to increase following development.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite significant losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA7 The South Bucks AQMA is designated for NO2 associated with the M25 to the north of the option, is less than 50m from some areas of the option which indicates air quality is likely to be poor for prospective residents. Development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. There is some GI screening between the

35 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No 22.4. Land Use Consultants P75. 36 Ibid.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

motorway and the option, however this may not be adequate to prevent poor air quality.

SA8 The moderate scale of development is likely to result in a small increase in the amount of waste produced by the district. However, the closest household waste and recycling centre found in Langley, approximately 4km south west of the option.

SA9 Good rail links are available from the option, with Uxbridge London Underground Station approximately 2.5km to the east and Iver Railway Station approximately 4km south. Regular bus services to Slough and Uxbridge operate from Bangors Road North, within 200m of some areas of the option. The closest amenities and services are found in Uxbridge, at least 2km from the option. The PRoW network around the option is good, meaning walking and cycling may be possible for some journeys for residents. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 2km south of the option. These factors are likely to contribute to relatively high personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 The number of dwellings within the new development is not currently specified, although it is expected at least 40% should be affordable.

SA11 There is a GP surgery on Church Road to the south of the option which is anticipated to be within 1km of all prospective residents. The closest hospital with A&E services is Hillingdon Hospital, approximately 4km away at the farthest point, a journey of 31 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers some access into the surrounding countryside. There is public open space to the south of the option, with the majority of prospective residents expected to be within 600m of this. The nearest leisure centre is approximately 2km from the option. Proximity to major and busy roads may have an adverse effect on prospective resident’s health and wellbeing.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable transport means. London is reasonably accessible for prospective residents, offering numerous employment opportunities. Employment space is anticipated within the development which should provide further opportunities to prospective residents. No jobs are anticipated to be lost through development at the option. There is a primary school within the target distance, however residents are anticipated to need to travel to access a secondary school, with the nearest being in Uxbridge.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.13 Area West of Iver Heath – Option 12

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate Biodiversity and Geodiversity and Biodiversity - - - -- + ------+++ +++ +

4.13.1 Area West of Iver Heath is a 31.65ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is 10.27ha. The option is situated north west of the Five Points Roundabout. Development is expected to include residential development, necessary infrastructure and associated open space. Any development at the option could be expected to be delayed until after 2025 so as to avoid contributing to construction-related traffic associated with committed developments in the area. The option currently contains a Royal British Legion building, a packaging and clothing company, open fields and houses in large plots.

Plate 12: Looking north east across option called ‘Area West of Iver Heath’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 The Grade II Listed Building, Little Coppice, is within the option, whilst the Grade II Listed Church of St Margaret of Antioch is on the perimeter of the option to the east. It is anticipated that the setting of these cultural assets will be permanently and adversely affected by development at the option. Development may also adversely affect an ANS, thought to be an undated enclosure/field system, which is present at the centre of the option.

SA2 This option is located amongst various urbanising influences included roads, houses and employment land uses which cumulatively introduces a background of development-influenced landscape quality, consequently improving the option’s suitability for development, within a suitable design setting which embraces the strong potential or GI at this location. Notwithstanding the development influences, the option is crossed by a footpath which would experience different views from the existing countryside were development to take place here. Otherwise the option is generally enclosed by perimeter vegetation which may expose the option more in winter. The LCA description for 22.4 Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace37 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak. This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park and development at this location could lead to a partial loss of this regionally important resource.

SA3 The option is within South Bucks Heaths and Parklands Biodiversity Opportunity area, therefore development at the option may represent a missed opportunity for a location of enhanced biodiversity in the local area. The habitats currently present include woodland, hedgerows, arable fields and grassland. Development at the option would be likely to result in the loss of habitat connectivity and potential loss of habitats of principle importance, along with the species associated with these.

SA4 Prospective residents are anticipated to have a high personal car use (see SA Objective 9), although a local centre could reduce this for existing and prospective residents. Small losses of GI, along with the increase in energy demands and GHG emissions associated with a large population increase, are also likely to contribute negatively towards limiting the area’s contribution to climate change.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite significant losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

37 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No 22.4. Land Use Consultants P75.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 Other than proximity to busy roads, the only potential concern regarding pollution is the quarry adjacent to the west of the option, which may result in noise and dust pollution at the option. A high anticipated personal car use of residents, in addition to a significant increase in population, is likely to result in an adverse impact to local air quality.

SA9 Good rail links are available from the option, with Uxbridge London Underground Station approximately 2.5km to the east and Iver Railway Station approximately 4km south. Regular bus services to Slough and Uxbridge operate from Church Road, within 400m of the majority of the option. The closest amenities and services are found in Uxbridge, at least 2km from the option. The PRoW network around the option is good, with a public footbath running through the option, meaning walking and cycling may be possible for some journeys for residents. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 1.5km south east of the option. These factors are likely to contribute to relatively high personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 Approximately 360 dwellings are anticipated within the proposed development, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable.

SA11 There is a GP surgery on Church Road at the perimeter of the option which is anticipated to be within 1km of all prospective residents. The closest hospital with A&E services is Hillingdon Hospital, approximately 4km away at the farthest point, a journey of 34 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers some access into the surrounding countryside, with a public footbath running through the option. There is some public open space to the south and the east of the option, with a small area of further public open space anticipated within the new development. The nearest leisure centre is approximately 1.2km from the option.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable transport means. London is reasonably accessible for prospective residents, offering numerous employment opportunities. No jobs are anticipated to be lost through development at the option. There is a primary school within the target distance, however residents are anticipated to need to travel to access a secondary school, with the nearest being in Uxbridge.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.14 Area North of Iver Station – Option 13

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape Geodiversit Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Climate ChangeAdaptation Climate O + -- -- + -- -- - + +++ + +++

4.14.1 Area North of Iver Station is a 33.86ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is 24ha. The option is situated south of the Grand Union Canal Slough Arm and west of Thorney Lane South. Development at the option is expected to include residential development, necessary infrastructure, associated open space, office space, comprehensive redevelopment of Thorney Lane Business Park, construction of an Iver relief road, a primary school and a local centre with shops and services. Employment space is subject to NPPF sequential test. There is also potential to include Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, and specialist accommodation for the elderly, a canal marina and self- build housing. Consideration is to be given regarding the delay of construction until after 2025 so as to avoid contributing to existing construction-related traffic associated with committed developments in the area. This former landfill option is now mostly grassland and scrubland with no existing use other than potentially hosting significant biodiversity, it is currently being assessed for wildlife option status.

Plate 13: Looking north across option called ‘Area North of Iver Station’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 As a former landfill option, any archaeological evidence will have been lost. Nearby ANSs are unlikely to be adversely affected by development at this location.

SA2 This option is significantly disturbed by previous development and whilst the scrubland which has developed since the option was a landfill location is attractive from a nature conservation perspective, in landscape terms there is much that lends this option to development, especially with a carefully planned GI layout at the option. This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park. The LCA description for 22.4 Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace38 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak.

SA3 Habitats present at the option which could be adversely affected by development include neutral grassland, woodland, ditches and ponds. Much of the option is currently considered to be a BNS (Opposite Iver Station) and is therefore protected. The nature conservation designation of this option is currently under review39. Development at the option is heavily dependent on the ongoing assessment for wildlife option status, in accordance with the precautionary principle it Is assumed that development would result in a significant loss of biodiversity.

SA4 Prospective residents are anticipated to have a low personal car use (see SA Objective 9). Significant losses of GI and the large scale of development are likely to contribute negatively towards limiting the area’s contribution to climate change, however.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite significant losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 The option is predominantly upon non-agricultural land according to the ALC. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources. Thorney Lane Business Park represents the only PDL available for redevelopment in the north-west of the option. A large area of historic landfill (Thorney Lane - South) exists within the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development.

38 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No 22.4. Land Use Consultants P75. 39 http://bucksmknep.co.uk/nep-projects/local-options/

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 A large area of historic landfill (Thorney Lane - South) exists within the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development. A significant pollution incident at this option was recorded by the Environment Agency in 2007. This pollution event was due to oils and fuel, and caused significant impact to land and water. It is unknown whether this pollution incident was treated, therefore this should be investigated. Development could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate

existing degraded land. The South Bucks AQMA is designated for NO2 associated with the M25 to the east of the option, is less than 100m from some areas of the option. The large proposed scale of development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. Noise, air and light pollution are likely to be a problem for prospective residents due to the close proximity of the option to the M25 and adjacent rail lines. The redevelopment of Thorney Lane Business Park is anticipated to result in a large reduction in heavy goods vehicle movements and will assist delivery of relief road.

SA8 The large scale of development may result in a significant increase in the amount of waste produced by the district, although this is dependent on the level of commercial waste produced at the site currently. The closest household waste and recycling centre is found in Langley, approximately 2km west of the option.

SA9 The nearest railway station is Iver, adjacent to the south of the option, which will be part of the new Elizabeth Line Cross Rail service. An irregular bus service to Slough, Uxbridge and Langley operate from Thorney Lane South, within 400m of the majority of the option. Limited amenities and services are found in in the local area. Proposals for a local centre within the development will improve upon these services for existing and prospective residents in the area. The PRoW network around the option is good, meaning walking and cycling may be possible for some journeys for residents. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 2.3km east of the option. These factors are likely to contribute to low personal car use by prospective residents.

SA10 Approximately 800 dwellings are anticipated within the 21ha of land proposed for residential development, it is expected at least 40% should be affordable. Development may also meet the residential needs of the elderly, and Gypsies and Travellers and include options for self-build homes.

SA11 There is a GP surgery within Iver, some 1.4km from the option at the farthest point. There are, however, plans to include health infrastructure at the option which may reduce the distance to the nearest GP for prospective residents. The closest hospital with A&E services is Hillingdon Hospital, approximately 4km away at the farthest point, a journey of 22 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside, with a public footpath running through the option. There is some public open space to the south and south east of the option, with further public open space anticipated within the new development. Iver Recreational Ground is approximately 1km to the north offering good outdoor sports facilities. The nearest leisure centre is anticipated to be within 1km of all prospective residents.

The South Bucks AQMA is designated for NO2 associated with the M25 to the

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

east of the option, is less than 100m from some areas of the option which is likely to result in poor air quality and noise pollution for prospective residents.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable transport means, including industrial parks in the immediate area. London is reasonably accessible for prospective residents, offering numerous employment opportunities. Some jobs associated with Thorney Lane Business Park are anticipated to be lost through development. Whilst the new development is anticipated to include at least 3ha of employment space. Access to schools is somewhat limited within the local area, with a primary school but no secondary school within the target distances.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.15 Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver – Option 14

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

Waste Health Housing Pollution Economy Landscape teChange Adaptation Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural Climate ChangeMitigation Climate Transport andTransportAccessibility Clima Biodiversity and Geodiversity and Biodiversity

O + - - + - --- O + ++ ++ ++

4.15.1 Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver is a 6.2ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is 1.2ha. The option is situated north of the Grand Union Canal Slough Arm and west of Thorney Lane North. Development at the option could be for single use or a mix of uses including residential, industrial and commercial development. The former landfill option is currently occupied by a groundwork and civil engineering company and a scrap yard in the eastern area, as well as a small gated residential area in the west of the option with grassland and woodland also present at the option. Existing commercial uses are expected to be retained, but if these are displaced then the option could potentially be considered for a new secondary school.

Plate 14: Looking north east across option called ‘Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver’

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 There are no recorded features of architectural, archaeological or heritage interest within or adjacent to the option. Development at this location is not predicted to have any impact on cultural heritage within the local area. It should be noted that the option is not far outside (e.g. <1000m from the Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Zone40, 2015).

SA2 This option is well screened with trees leading to restricted visibility from adjacent roads and the surrounding area. It is also partially brownfield and located close to the M25 motorway. It is not a tranquil location and landscape character lacks distinctiveness. This option is located within the Colne Valley Regional Park. The LCA description for 22.4 Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace41 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is weak.

SA3 Aside from the wooded area in the southern area, there is not considered to be high biodiversity at the option. No nature conservation designations exist in the immediate area and proximity to the motorway seen to negatively impact biodiversity.

SA4 Residents are anticipated to have a moderate personal car use (see SA Objective 9). Losses of GI and the moderate scale of development are likely to contribute negatively towards limiting the area’s contribution to climate change.

SA5 The option is situated within Flood Zone 1 therefore, despite significant losses of GI, development at this option is likely to avoid areas at high risk of flooding.

SA6 The option is non-agricultural land according to the ALC and is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area. Further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources. There are areas of PDL available at the option for redevelopment. A large area of historic landfill (Thorney Lane - North) exists within the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development. A scrap yard is present in at the option, which may mean that development could reclaim or remediate any soil contamination or pollution associated with this use of the option, although none has been reported.

40 Hillingdon Borough Council (2015) Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Zone 41 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Iver Heath Mixed Use Terrace. Character Area No 22.4. Land Use Consultants P75.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 A scrap yard is present at the option, which may mean that development could reclaim or remediate any soil contamination or pollution associated with this use of the option, although none has been reported. A large area of historic landfill (Thorney Lane - North) exists within the option, which is likely to be unsuitable for residential development, but could offer an opportunity to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land for alternative purposes within the development. Some of the option is within the South Bucks AQMA, which is

designated for NO2 associated with the M25 to the east of the option. Development is likely to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. All prospective residents or employees at the option are expected to be within 200m of this AQMA therefore very poor air quality is likely. Noise, air and light pollution are likely to be a problem for prospective residents due to the close proximity of the option to the M25.

SA8 The closest household waste and recycling centre is found in Langley, approximately 2km west of the option. The anticipated small scale of development and proximity to waste and recycling facilities suggests that a significant impact on the district’s levels of waste is unlikely.

SA9 The nearest Railway Station is Iver, approximately 1km from the option at the farthest distance. An irregular bus service to Slough, Uxbridge and Langley operate from Thorney Lane North, within 400m of all prospective residents or employees at the option. Limited amenities and services are found in in the local area. Should development include commercial services then this may be improved upon for existing and prospective residents. The PRoW network around the option may need improving for walking and cycling to be utilised more by prospective residents. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 2km east of the option. These factors are likely to contribute to moderate personal car use by prospective residents or employees, development of local amenities and services and improvements to the PRoW network would increase the proportion of travel by sustainable transport of existing and prospective residents.

SA10 The number of dwellings expected within the new development is currently unknown, although it is expected at least 40% should be affordable.

SA11 There is a GP surgery within Iver which is within 1km of the entire option. The closest hospital with A&E services is Hillingdon Hospital, approximately 4km away at the farthest point, a journey of 22 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network offers good access into the surrounding countryside, with a public footbath running through the option. There is some public open space to the north of the option, with Iver Recreational Ground approximately 1km to the east offering good outdoor sports facilities. The nearest leisure centre is anticipated to be within 1.5km of all prospective residents. The South Bucks

AQMA is designated for NO2 associated with the M25 in close proximity to the east of the option which is likely to result in poor air quality for prospective residents.

SA12 Access to employment for prospective residents is good, with some of the employment regions in the surrounding area easily accessible via sustainable

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

transport means, including industrial parks in the immediate area. London is reasonably accessible for prospective residents, offering numerous employment opportunities. Jobs at the groundworks and scrap yard may be lost if these operations are displaced, however these losses could be offset by the new office, industrial or commercial uses of the option. Access to schools is somewhat limited within the local area, with a primary school but no secondary school within the target distances. A new secondary school could be considered if the existing uses of the option are displaced.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

4.16 Land Adjacent to Taplow Station – Option 15

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

- + - +/- - + - +/- + O O +++

4.16.1 Land Adjacent to Taplow Station is a 4.41ha option located in the Green Belt, the developable area of which is 3.7ha. The option is situated north of Bath Road and south of Taplow Station. Development at the option is proposed for office based employment purposes, subject to NPPF sequential test. The option is currently occupied by several businesses, including a motorhome dealership, hot tub sales, brick reclaiming yard, a hand car wash and a plant nursery.

Plate 15: Option 15, south eastern corner, off the A4.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA1 The Grade II Listed Dumb Bell Bridge is adjacent to the west of the option. The setting of this cultural asset, including the railway line and further associated features, are unlikely to be diminished as the topography of the option means development is unlikely to extend to this region, although this is dependent of the design of the office buildings within the development. The surrounding area contains numerous ANSs relating to different periods including Palaeolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Saxon and post-medieval. It is recommended that further archaeological assessment is undertaken to ensure development at this location does not damage any archaeological assets in the area.

SA2 This option is characterised by gently sloping topography, mostly developed land with small wooded areas with mature trees. The LCA description for 26.2 Dorney Flood Plain42 states that the strength of character and intactness of the character area is moderate. This option is generally well screened with trees leading to restricted visibility from adjacent roads and the surrounding area. The option is adjacent to an industrial area and has existing industrial uses, therefore development is not anticipated to adversely impact the landscape character.

SA3 Habitats present at the option which could be adversely affected by development include areas of hedgerows, woodland and ponds. There is not considered to be high biodiversity at the option, however some areas, such as a pond in the south of the option may host several important species, in addition to the hedgerows wooded areas with are found at the perimeter of the option. A lake designated as a BNS exists to the south west of the option. The lake is thought to host significant biodiversity and is used by anglers. Pollution from development at the option could disturb this habitat.

SA4 Prospective employees are anticipated to have good access to sustainable transport means in order to commute (see SA Objective 9). Development is likely to result in small losses of GI. Energy consumption and GHG emissions are dependent upon the businesses present following development, although it is likely that these will be greater than the existing uses of the option.

SA5 Much of the option is situated within Flood Zone 2 therefore, there is a risk of flooding at the option. An increase in hardstanding at the option due to development could increase this risk further.

SA6 According to the ALC, the option is entirely located upon land of Grade 3 agricultural classification, although much of the option is now developed so may no longer be suitable for agriculture. This option is located within Buckinghamshire Mineral Safeguarding Area, further investigation is required to reveal whether mineral resources at the option are viable for extraction or if development would sterilise these resources, however existing PDL is likely to have done so already. There are several areas of PDL available at the option for redevelopment.

42 Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) Dorney Flood Plain. Character Area No 26.2. Land Use Consultants P119.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

SA7 The entire option is within Groundwater SPZ 3 therefore there is a low risk of groundwater source pollution during the construction phase of development which must be monitored by developers. Noise, air and light pollution are likely to be a problem for prospective residents due to the close proximity of the option to busy roads and adjacent rail lines.

SA8 The amount of waste produced at the option dependent upon the businesses present following development, although it is likely that these will be greater than the existing uses of the option.

SA9 The nearest railway station is Taplow, adjacent to the option. A regular bus service to Slough, Maidenhead, Bracknell and Wexham Court runs from Bath Road, within 400m of all prospective employees at the option. A range of amenities and services are found in the immediate area. The PRoW network around the option is poor. The nearest electric car charging point is approximately 500m east of the option. Overall, prospective employees are anticipated to have good access to sustainable transport means in order to commute.

SA10 The proposed development is for office buildings, subject to NPPF sequential test, with an imposition of a planning condition on any conversion of the office buildings to residential use in the future also likely.

SA11 The closest GP surgery is approximately 1.5km west of the option. The closest hospital with A&E services is Wexham Park Hospital, approximately 8km away at the farthest point, a journey of 33 minutes by public transport. The PRoW network around the option is good, offering good access to the outdoors. There are several areas of public open space in close proximity to the option. The air pollution due to the proximity to busy roads may have adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of prospective employees at the option.

SA12 The option is allocated for employment purposes and is therefore anticipated to contribute towards meeting the employment needs of the district. It is not yet known the extent to which development may result in the loss of jobs from businesses currently operating from the option, however these would be expected to be offset by the new employment space provided.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

5 Summary of Pre-Mitigation Findings

5.1.1 The scoring matrix for each potential Garden Village location has been brought together in Table 5.1 to allow for quick comparison.

Table 5.1: SA Objective scoring matrices for each potential option. This is in the absence of mitigation. Each row is numbered, relating to a potential Green Belt removal location, as follows: 1. North East of Chesham, 2. Area south of Holmer Green, 3. Area East of Hazlemere, 4. Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town, 5. Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town, 6. Area South of Little Chalfont, 7. National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter, 8. Area South East of Chalfont St Peter, 9. Area East of Beaconsfield, 10. Land North of Denham Roundabout, 11. Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood, 12. Area West of Iver Heath, 13. Area North of Iver Station, 14. Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver, 15. Land Adjacent to Taplow Station.

SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12

lution Waste Health Housing Pol Economy Mitigation Landscape Adaptation Accessibility Geodiversity Transport andTransport Climate Change Climate Change Climate Biodiversity and and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Cultural Natural Resources Natural

1 ------+ - - - + +++ ++ +

2 O - - -- + - - - -- +++ ++ +

3 O ------+ - -- - - +++ ++ -

4 ------++ ++ + +

5 ------+ -- - - ++ ++ + +

6 O - -- -- + - - - ++ +++ - +

7 - + - -- + -- - - - + + +

8 O - - -- + -- - - + +++ ++ +

9 - +/- -- -- + - - -- ++ +++ ++ +++

10 O + - - + -- --- +/- + O O +++

11 O - - -- + ------++ ++ +++

12 - - - -- + ------+++ +++ +

13 O + -- -- + -- -- - + +++ + +++

14 O + - - + - --- O + ++ ++ ++

15 - + - +/- - + - +/- + O O +++

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

5.2 Summary of Sustainability Performance Against SEA Topics

5.2.1 Each potential Green Belt removal location was considered through the SA Framework in Chapter 4. This chapter brings the assessment results together to highlight the anticipated significant effects that were identified during this process. A narrative is provided which discusses the significant effects for the performance of locations against the topics listed in Annex 1(f) of the SEA Directive.

5.3 Housing

5.3.1 Each potential Green Belt removal location allocated for residential purposes is anticipated to make a positive contribution towards meeting the housing needs of the districts. For some options the expected level of affordable housing has been set at 40% or greater. However, for other options this figure remains unclear.

5.3.2 Some options, particularly National Epilepsy Centre, Chalfont St Peter, are anticipated to cater well for the needs of the elderly in the districts.

5.3.3 Several options are anticipated to allow the accommodation of options specifically for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

5.4 Biodiversity

5.4.1 Development at all potential Green Belt removal locations is anticipated to have a negative effect on biodiversity for various reasons. As Green Belt locations, the current uses at the respective options are more conducive to high biodiversity than development for residential or employment purposes. Despite this, no national nature conservation designations are anticipated to be directly adversely affected by development at any preferred Green Belt option. A significant potential issue to be considered for Green Belt removal locations is the fragmentation of habitats following development, reducing the connectivity of habitats within the districts. Priority habitats vulnerable to adverse effects through development include chalk grassland, mature hedgerows and Ancient Woodland. Any priority species associated with these habitats are also vulnerable to adverse effects. Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town has chalk grassland present at the option which promotes high biodiversity of insects and butterflies. Burnham Beeches SAC & SSSI, which hosts high plant, invertebrate and bird biodiversity is potentially vulnerable from increased traffic and recreational pressure due to development at Area East of Beaconsfield.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

5.5 Population and Human Health

5.5.1 Several factors contribute to the mixed capabilities of potential Green Belt removal locations to facilitate good health and wellbeing of prospective residents. Most options have a GP surgery within an accessible distance, however hospitals with A&E services are less accessible, especially for those options located in Chiltern District. Public open space is also a key factor in facilitating the health and wellbeing of residents, with options incorporating this into design proposals scoring well.

5.5.2 One factor of major concern for the health of prospective residents is air pollution due to proximity to major roads, with rates of mortality due to air pollution already very close to the national average at 4.5% and 4.7% for Chiltern and South Bucks respectively43. This consideration is most pertinent to options in close proximity to designated AQMAs such as Area East of Beaconsfield, Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver and Land North of Iver Heath, South East of Pinewood.

5.6 Soil

5.6.1 Soil within the districts is a highly valuable and non-renewable resource. Many of the potential Green Belt removal locations are largely located on previously undeveloped land, which is undesirable due to potential for soil contamination, soil loss and erosion, loss of carbon sink and water filtering capabilities. Whilst some would involve the development of non- agricultural land, such as Area East of Hazlemere, many would require development of Grade 3 agricultural land. Development would therefore be likely to result in the loss of some of the district’s most versatile and productive soils. Options with uses such as former landfill and scrap yards, in addition to those with reported pollution events, may represent good opportunities to reclaim or remediate existing degraded land, although these may be unsuitable for residential development. Prior assessment is recommended in order to establish the level of contamination. Land Adjacent to Taplow Station represents the best potential Green Belt removal location in terms of natural resources.

43 Public Health Outcomes Framework

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

5.7 Water

5.7.1 None of the potential Green Belt removal locations are anticipated to have a positive effect on water quality due to the significant increase in demand on water demand and treatment facilities. Further assessments may reveal areas where the capacity of such facilities is able to cope with this increased demand. There is a risk of contamination of open or ground water during the construction phase of a development. This is of particular concern for options containing water courses such as the River Misbourne at Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town, where water quality must be monitored throughout the construction phase of development. Water pollution may also be of concern for options within Groundwater Protection Zone 2 such as Area South East of Chalfont St Peter, however there are no options are within Groundwater Protection Zone 1 where this risk would be highest. The options with increased risk of flooding are Land Adjacent to Taplow Station and Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town, situated within Flood Zones 2 and 3 respectively.

5.8 Air

5.8.1 Air, noise and light pollution is anticipated due to construction and occupation of new homes. Proximity to busy roads is a major factor which could result in poor air quality for prospective residents, of particular concern for options adjacent to motorways and AQMAs such as Area to the East of Ridgeway Business Park, Iver. Whilst development adjacent to AQMAs is likely to result in poor air quality at the option, it is also anticipated to compromise efforts to reduce traffic thus preventing efforts to deal with the cause of the AQMA. The loss of GI, the extent of which varies between options, Is likely to have a further negative effect on the local air quality by diminishing the natural local air filtering function of the vegetation.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

5.9 Climatic Factors

5.9.1 The risk of flooding is low in the majority of options. Area South of London Road West, Amersham Old Town has areas of Flood Zone 3a and 3b associated with the River Misbourne which represents a high risk of flooding, whilst Land Adjacent to Taplow Station is situated within Flood Zone 2. An increase in hard standing and the loss of GI is likely to increase surface run-off and therefore increase the risk of flooding at some options. The loss of GI at all options also constitutes a loss of natural carbon sink in the area. Poor access to sustainable modes of transport, along with poor availability of local amenities and services, is anticipated to result increased GHG emissions from high personal car use of prospective residents at some Green Belt preferred options. This is also contributed to significantly by the higher energy consumption from a large increase in population. Due to these factors, mitigating climate change in the districts is anticipated to more difficult following development at any of the Green Belt preferred options.

5.10 Cultural Assets

5.10.1 Development in the majority of the potential Green Belt removal locations is situated away from cultural assets or is well screened from them, so is therefore anticipated to have a negligible impact upon cultural heritage within the area. ANSs are present within and around of the several options. No fundamental objections to any of the proposed options have been identified with regard to archaeological remnants at options. However, further archaeological assessments are expected prior to development in order to comply with section 12 of the NPPF, ensuring the conservation of the local historic environment.

5.11 Landscape

5.11.1 Development is deemed likely to have a negative impact upon the landscape character of the majority of potential Green Belt removal locations. This is largely due to proximity to the Chilterns AONB, Colne Valley Regional Park and public footpaths. Options where this is of particular concern include Area East of Hazlemere, Area South of London Road West and Amersham Old Town, Area South East of Whielden Street, Amersham Old Town, where proposed development is within the AONB. Potential loss of woodland and hedgerows at some Green Belt preferred options may have adverse effects upon the local landscape as these are valued features in the region.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

6 Mitigation Recommendations

6.1.1 The information presented in this chapter has been prepared with the intention of providing general mitigation recommendations which may result in improvements upon SA Objective scores at Green Belt preferred options. Option-specific mitigation recommendations are to be offered later in the Local Plan production process when more detailed design proposals are available.

6.1.2 General and option-specific requirements as part of any development have been identified by the Councils, including Infrastructure Requirements and Additional Outstanding Matters for each option within the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation (October – December 2016). These are separate from the Preferred Options Proposal, so were not considered within the pre-mitigation assessments, however many of these requirements may act as mitigation strategies. Table 6.1 summarises some of the general Requirements for Development offered which are given the SA objective to which they are relevant. Should these requirements be successfully accorded with, the sustainability performance of each Green Belt preferred option is likely to improve. It should be noted that the option-specific requirements made are also anticipated to improve sustainability performance.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

Table 6.1: General requirements for development

Development Requirement Relevance to SA Objective

SA4 Climate Change Mitigation Necessary infrastructure (either directly provided on-option or secured through funding by the 1 SA9 Transport and Accessibility developer) or development delayed until provided by an infrastructure provider or other means. SA12 Economy

An appropriate proportion of 2 SA10 Housing affordable housing

SA4 Climate Change Mitigation Connectivity with adjoining built 3 areas, community facilities and transport access points with emphasis SA9 Transport and Accessibility on walking and cycling. SA11 Health

Retention of wooded areas, important SA2 Landscape trees and hedgerows. Enhanced tree 4 planting/landscaping within the option with particular attention to boundary areas with the countryside. SA3 Biodiversity

Adequate functional open spaces to include children’s play facilities. Viable 5 and sustainable management and SA11 Health funding proposals put in place for all open space areas.

6.2 Mitigation recommendations for SA Objectives

6.2.1 For each objective, information is presented about mitigation considerations and recommendations. Mitigation considerations identify the key issues that have arisen during assessment. Recommendations are identified for the purpose of informing Local Planning policy.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

6.3 SA Objective 1: Cultural Heritage

CH1 Loss of archaeological features is an irreversible adverse effect, therefore assessment and necessary excavation of features prior to development should be carefully documented and added to the local historic record. Measures of this type are especially necessary at Land North of Denham Roundabout and Land Adjacent to Taplow Station, where there are already archaeological designations in the local area.

CH2 Where possible development should consider sensitive design around existing cultural assets and maintain the setting of such assets through sensitive design, including the use of screening. For options proximal to specific areas of cultural interest, such as Amersham Historic Core adjacent.

CH3 In order to enhance the cultural heritage of the area, development should improve access to, and increase the local awareness of, important cultural assets in the area.

6.4 SA Objective 2: Landscape

L1 Where possible, development should incorporate mitigation through careful design including planting strategies. Key characteristics for Landscape Character Areas should be maintained where possible. Development should not hinder the successful delivery of management prescriptions for Landscape Character Areas.

L2 New development should seek to avoid introducing light or noise pollution by following sensitive design principles.

L3 New development should seek to incorporate new planting schemes or landscape buffers into the development design for screening purposes, in keeping with the local character. Screening buffers should be made up of local indigenous species that will maintain their functionality throughout the year (e.g. species that do not lose foliage over the winter months).

L4 Development within the setting of the Chilterns AONB should be avoided as irreversible and negative effects may be incurred to the landscape character of the area.

L5 Use of PDL and existing buildings is recommended in order to have the least disruptive effect on the local landscape.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

L6 In general, lower density housing developments are anticipated to have a reduced negative impact on the surrounding landscape character, therefore this is recommended.

L7 Incorporation of large areas of GI within new developments, especially at the most rural green belt removal locations, is also recommended.

6.5 SA Objective 3: Biodiversity

B1 Biodiversity within the districts relies on habitat connectivity throughout the wider area, therefore special consideration should be given to this within planning and design44. GI within developments should be designed with the goal of maintaining and improving the habitat connectivity of the wider region.

B2 Biodiversity should be considered as an overall network within the wider region, with development aimed at preserving this overall network whilst avoiding the isolation and fragmentation of habitats within this network.

B3 Where habitats present may have the potential to support protected species, surveys should be undertaken to determine presence/absence and population size. This will determine as to whether protected species are likely to be lost if the option were to be developed.

B4 Where possible, development should seek to ensure net gain of overall biodiversity, which can be achieved through maintenance of existing habitats and habitat connectivity, whilst also incorporating further habitats.

B5 Development should be in line with Natural England’s ‘Access to Natural Greenspace Standard’ 45 , which sets recommended distances to greenspaces within the local area. These standards aim to improve access to greenspaces and connectivity of greenspaces.

44 Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership (2016) Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes: State of the Environment Report 45 Natural England (2010) Access to Natural Greenspace Standard

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

B6 Where possible, removal of existing linear features such as woodland, hedgerows, tree lines and aquatic networks should be avoided, with the aim of including new features within the development also.

B7 Development should avoid areas with nature conservation designations wherever possible as these locations are highly sensitive to disruption.

6.6 SA Objective 4: Climate Change Mitigation

CCM1 Personal car use of prospective residents can be reduced by supporting sustainable transport modes, i.e. through increasing proximity of residents to public transport links in line with the recommended distances within Barton et al (2010)46 and improving the local PRoW network. Increasing the frequency of public transport services where necessary is also recommended in order to encourage their use. Personal car use can be further reduced through provision of local amenities, services, educational facilities and employment opportunities.

CCM2 Where possible development should maximize energy efficiency of buildings, contributing to the percentage of energy in the area generated from renewable sources.

CCM3 Both the retention of existing and incorporation of new GI and vegetation should be encouraged within design in order to promote the natural air filtering qualities and carbon sink function of local vegetation.

CCM4 Development should aim to support renewable energy technologies, such as incorporation of electric car charging points, south facing roofs to maximise solar panel efficiency and waste-to-energy facilities.

CCM5 Reduction of GHG emissions is achievable by situating residential developments within close proximity to employment areas and educational facilities, and with good access to sustainable transport means.

46 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for local health and global sustainability, Spon Press

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

6.7 SA Objective 5: Climate Change Adaptation

CCA1 To promote the natural air filtering qualities and carbon sink function of local vegetation, the retention of existing GI and incorporation of this into the development where possible is recommended. This should seek to enhance and strengthen Buckinghamshire’s strategic network of GI.

CCA2 If only part of an option is in Flood Zone 2 or 3 it is recommended that these areas are retained as open space and have a good ability to drain safely without risk of flooding to new or existing developments.

CCA3 Where development in an area at high risk of flooding is unavoidable, mitigation should involve implementing sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) or GI features such as attenuation and balancing ponds. GI features can also slow surface water runoff and increase absorption of floodwater.

6.8 SA Objective 6: Natural Resources

NR1 Wherever possible development should re-use PDL and existing buildings, and should be upon land of the lowest agricultural value. Therefore, where possible, Grade 1 or 2 or 3a agricultural land should be maintained.

NR2 Use of contaminated or historic landfill for green space where prior assessment deems this to be safe is recommended, with safety precautions such as gas level monitoring and gas alleviation or release methods incorporated into development where necessary.

NR3 Many of the options are located upon land believed to contain mineral resources which may be of value and importance to the region. Assessments should be undertaken to determine this, whilst the mitigation hierarchy should be applied when seeking to conserve and safeguard mineral resources47.

47 Mitigation hierarchy

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

6.9 SA Objective 7: Pollution

P1 Employment of water quality mitigation methods including SuDS and water flood attenuation schemes is advised.

P2 Options within Groundwater SPZs 1 and 2 should carefully monitor the risk of groundwater pollution during the construction phase of development.

P3 Where possible, employment of air quality mitigation methods including careful development design arrangement, and sustainable traffic management principles is recommended.

P4 Retain existing GI and incorporate this into the development where possible. Seek to enhance and strengthen Buckinghamshire’s strategic network of GI.

P5 Screening of major roads with vegetation is advised as this can lead to a reduction the spreading of air pollution. This should be conducted in-line with the Forest Research ‘Improving Air Quality’ guidelines48.

P6 Placement of residential areas should be situated away from busy roads, particularly those with designated AQMAs, in order to improve air quality for prospective residents. With rates of mortality due to air pollution already very close to the national average at 4.5% and 4.7% for Chiltern and South Bucks respectively49, this is a serious issue.

6.10 SA Objective 8: Waste

W1 Sufficient opportunities should be identified to meet the needs of the development area for management of waste streams.

W2 Incorporation of allotments within new developments advised in order to encourage the community to live sustainably and be self-sufficient.

48 Forest Research (2006) Improving Air Quality 49 Public Health Outcomes Framework

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

W3 Where economically and environmentally practical, development should promote re-use of locally sourced and/or recycled materials, and high quality recycling facilities.

W4 Design proposals facilitating management of waste higher up the waste hierarchy is recommended, such as favouring prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste, with energy recovery and disposal seen as less favourable.

6.11 SA Objective 9: Transport and Accessibility

TA1 Development should look to improve the current sustainable transport network and encourage behavioural change to encourage the use of sustainable transport through providing proximal and accessible facilities and making services more frequent.

TA2 Traffic congestion is problematic for several areas in the district50. Design should attempt to alleviate some of this congestion through use of relief roads and provision of access to new developments via less congested routes.

TA3 Improvements to bus services are required at some Green Belt preferred options in order to reduce the reliance on personal car use.

TA4 To mitigate potential impacts on local and national road networks, development should aim to be located near to existing amenities and transport links, as well as include new amenities and new sustainable transport links into larger developments.

TA5 The PRoW network around some options could be improved in order to facilitate better access to sustainable transport facilities, local amenities and services and into the surrounding countryside.

50 Jacobs (2016) Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Transport Modelling Report

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

TA6 Measures to promote cycling use would include an increase is bike lanes, incorporation of secure bike stores within developments and the employment of free/discounted bike schemes51

6.12 SA Objective 10: Housing

Ho1 In line with the Buckinghamshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2008), a higher proportion of affordable housing should be made available in order to allow people without existing equity in a home to buy a house. This could be achieved through higher levels of subsidy.

Ho2 Careful consideration should be given to density, design and future proofing in terms of climate change and potential expansion.

Ho3 Careful consideration of the needs of first-time buyers and the elderly should be made in order to maximise the suitability of any new development to the districts’ needs.

Ho4 New homes should also be designed to meet Government targets of zero carbon emissions though inclusion of renewable energy generation methods (e.g. solar panels), use of recycled and/or reclaimed materials and the use of high energy performance materials.

Ho5 It is considered important to analyse the needs and requirements for Gypsy and Traveller options in terms of their location and provision of facilities in line with recent research findings and policy, both regionally and nationally52,53,54.

51 Planning Resource (2017) 'Healthy New Towns' winner includes free bike obligation on developers http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1442639/healthy-new-towns-winner-includes-free-bike- obligation-developers 52 Ibid. 53 Royal Town Planning Institute (2007) Planning for Gypsies and Travellers 54 Department for Communities and Local Government (2015) Planning policy for Traveller Options

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

6.13 SA Objective 11: Health

He1 If there is not a surplus of recreational space, any losses should be replaced with facilities of at least the same quality and area either on-option or nearby. It may be acceptable to provide a smaller area of recreational space if this is of a higher quality than the space that is being lost. Above all, green space should be accessible, safe, and of a functionality suited to the neighbourhood and local needs.

He2 Where health and recreation facilities are not within the recommended distances, it may be possible to provide these onsite. Where this is not possible, facilities should be easily accessible by sustainable modes of transport, e.g. via affordable, frequent bus services.

He3 Positioning of residential developments away from areas at high risk of air pollution, in addition to the retention and provision of public open spaces, is likely to improve the physical and mental health of residents and employees at the Green Belt preferred options55.

He4 One factor of major concern for the health of prospective residents is air pollution due to proximity to major roads, with rates of mortality due to air pollution already very close to the national average at 4.5% and 4.7% for Chiltern and South Bucks respectively56. Screening of major roads with vegetation is advised as this can lead to a reduction the spreading of air pollution. This should be conducted in-line with the Forest Research ‘Improving Air Quality’ guidelines57.

6.14 SA Objective 12: Economy

E1 If operating businesses will be removed from the option, there should be suitable alternative business premises nearby. Existing businesses could be given support in finding new premises and moving over from one to the other.

55 Time (2017) What Green Spaces Can Do to Your Mood 56 Public Health Outcomes Framework 57 Forest Research (2006) Improving Air Quality

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

E2 Placement of employment areas in close proximity to sustainable transport links, especially the PRoW and bus networks, would allow more sustainable access.

E3 A diverse range of businesses within the area, technology and innovation- led businesses, is considered best for economic stability and productivity58. This is achieved though provision of a variety of employment facilities.

E4 Encouragement of businesses start-ups can be achieved through inclusion of more subsidised facilities and by integrating employment space within communities59

58 Triple Pundit (2015) Economic Diversity: A Key to Urban Growth and Productivity http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/03/economic-diversity-key-urban-growth-productivity/ 59 Strong Towns (2016) How to Encourage Entrepreneurship https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/19/how-to-encourage-entrepreneurship-in-your-town

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

7 Post-Mitigation Assessment

7.1.1 Through successful implementation of the above mitigation recommendations, it is anticipated that the sustainability performance of the majority of the Green Belt preferred options would be significantly improved.

7.1.2 A ‘master-plan’ has recently been made available for one of the options assessed, 13. Area North of Iver Station, presenting the concept behind proposals to transform this option into a new Garden Village. Contained within these design proposals are some of the aforementioned mitigation measures. These include incorporation of SuDS, avoidance of areas closest to designated AQMAs, the use of PDL and historic landfill options and the placement of residential areas in close proximity to local services, employment space, educational facilities and accessible sustainable transport means. Should the master-plan be successfully accorded with, the sustainability performance of this option would be greatly improved, although a significant adverse impact upon biodiversity is unavoidable.

7.1.3 Post-mitigation assessments of all options in the absence of such detailed design proposals is not undertaken as this would be abortive and unfaithful to the SA process.

7.1.4 Should the enclosed option assessments and mitigation recommendations successfully inform planners, the sustainability performance of the majority of Green Belt preferred options is anticipated to improve.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

8 Monitoring

8.1.1 The SEA Directive states that ‘member states shall monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes…in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action’ (Article 10.1). In addition, the Environmental Report (or SA Report) should provide information on a ‘description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring’ (Annex I (i)).

8.1.2 The monitoring requirements typically associated with the SA process are recognised as placing heavy demands on authorities with SA responsibilities. For this reason, the proposed monitoring framework should focus on those aspects of the environment that are likely to be negatively impacted upon, where the impact is uncertain or where particular opportunities for improvement might arise.

8.1.3 The purpose of monitoring is to measure the environmental effects of a plan, as well as to measure success against the plan’s objectives. It is therefore beneficial if the monitoring strategy builds on monitoring systems that are already in place. It should also be noted that monitoring could provide useful information for future plans and programmes.

8.1.4 The SA process has identified some areas that would benefit from ongoing monitoring. The areas specified for monitoring include:

• Levels of public transport patronage; • Further archaeological detection prior to development; • Air pollution levels; • Groundwater pollution levels; and • Gas levels at former landfill options.

8.1.5 Monitoring is particularly useful in answering the following questions:

• Were the assessment’s predictions of sustainability effects accurate? • Does the Core Strategy contribute to the achievement of desired sustainability objectives? • Are mitigation measures performing as well as expected? • Are there any unforeseen adverse effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is remedial action required?

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

8.2 Monitoring Proposals

8.2.1 The SA guidance suggests that SA monitoring and reporting activities can be integrated into the regular planning cycle. As part of the monitoring process, South Bucks and Chiltern District Councils will be required to prepare Annual Monitoring Reports. It is anticipated that elements of the SA monitoring programme for the Core Strategy could be incorporated into these processes.

8.2.2 Details of any monitoring programme are, at this stage, preliminary and may evolve over time based on the results of consultation and the identification of additional data sources (as in some cases information will be provided by outside bodies). The monitoring of individual schemes/proposals should also be addressed at project level.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

9 Conclusions and Next Steps

9.1.1 This report has evaluated the performance of 15 Green Belt preferred options against twelve SA Framework Objectives. Using the evidence described herein, significant likely effects of development at each location based on the most detailed design proposals available at the time of writing have been identified and explained. For each SA Objective, narrative descriptions and an overall score based on this narrative have been made for every Green Belt preferred option.

9.1.2 At this stage in the preparation of the Local Plan, specific knowledge of the development design at each location Is limited, therefore the appraisal is partly based on the spatial attributes of each location.

9.1.3 Overall the sustainability performance for the Green Belt preferred options is mixed, with some options scoring relatively well, whilst others are assessed negatively for the majority of SA Objectives. Negative scores are especially prevalent for landscape, biodiversity, pollution, waste and climate change mitigation Objectives. However, most scored positively for climate change adaptation, transport and accessibility, health, housing and economy Objectives.

9.1.4 General mitigation recommendations are offered which are likely to result in improvements upon SA Objective scores at Green Belt preferred options. Option-specific mitigation recommendations are to be offered later in the Local Plan production process when more detailed design proposals are available. If mitigation recommendations and strategies are successfully adhered to the sustainability performance of all options has the capacity to improve.

9.1.5 Monitoring suggestions are also made in order to understand whether this assessment’s predictions of sustainability effects are accurate, in addition to the performance of mitigation strategies and whether remedial action is required for any unforeseen adverse effects which may occur.

9.2 Next steps

9.2.1 This report represents the latest stage of the SA process. The SA process will take on-board any comments on this report and use them to furnish the next report with greater detail and accuracy.

Chiltern and South Bucks SA Green Belt Preferred Options September 2017 LC-330_SBucks_&_Chilterns_GB_SA_18_290917DS.docx

9.2.2 Once CDC and SBDC have identified their preferred options, preparation of an Environmental Report will begin, also known as a full SA report. This Environmental Report will include all of the legal requirements set out in Annex 1 of the SEA Directive.

Appendix A: SA Framework

SA Objective Decision-Aiding Questions

Will it preserve features of architectural or Q1a historic interest and, where necessary, encourage their conservation and renewal? Cultural heritage: Protect, enhance and manage options, features and areas 1 of archaeological, historical Q1b Will it preserve or enhance archaeological and cultural heritage options/remains? importance.

Will it preserve or enhance the setting of Q1c cultural heritage assets?

Will it safeguard and enhance the character of Q2a the landscape and local distinctiveness and identity?

Will it protect and enhance visual amenity, Q2b including light and noise pollution? Landscape: Protect, enhance and manage the character and appearance Q2c Will it reuse degraded landscape/townscape? of the landscape and 2 townscape, maintaining and strengthening distinctiveness and its Will it compromise the purpose of the Green special qualities. Q2d Belt e.g. will it lead to coalescence of settlements and/or urban sprawl?

Will it protect and enhance the characteristics Q2e and setting of the Chilterns AONB and/or Colne Valley Regional Park?

Q3a Will it protect and enhance biodiversity?

Biodiversity and Q3b Will it contribute to habitat connectivity? geodiversity: Protect, 3 enhance and manage biodiversity and geodiversity. Will it maintain and enhance options Q3c designated for their biodiversity or geodiversity interest and increase their area?

Will it help reduce the per capita carbon Q4a footprint of Chiltern and South Bucks?

Climate change mitigation: Minimise the districts’ 4 contribution to climate change. Will it encourage renewable energy Q4b generation or use of energy from renewable sources?

Will it avoid development in areas at high risk Q5a of flooding?

Climate change adaptation: Plan for the Will it increase the area and connectivity of 5 Q5b anticipated levels of Green Infrastructure? climate change.

Will it promote use of technologies and Q5c techniques to adapt to the impacts of climate change?

Will it utilise previously developed, degraded Q6a and under-used land?

Natural resources: Protect 6 and conserve natural Will it lead to the loss of the best and most resources. Q6b versatile agricultural land?

Q6c Will it help to protect mineral deposits in the district, particularly sand and gravel?

Q7a Will it maintain and improve air quality?

7 Pollution: Reduce air, soil and water pollution. Q7b Will it maintain and enhance soil quality?

Q7c Will it maintain and improve water quality?

Waste: Reduce waste Q8a Will it encourage recycling of waste? generation and disposal, 8 and achieve the sustainable Will it minimise and where possible eliminate management of waste. Q8b generation of waste? Transport and accessibility: Improve the efficiency of 9 transport networks by Q9a Will it reduce the need to travel? increasing the proportion of travel by sustainable

modes and by promoting policies which reduce the need to travel.

Will it provide adequate means of access by a Q9b range of sustainable transport modes (i.e. walking/cycling/public transport)?

Will it provide a mix of good-quality housing, Q10a including homes that are suitable for first- time buyers?

Housing: Provide 10 affordable, environmentally Will it provide housing suitable for the sound and good quality Q10b housing for all. growing elderly population?

Q10c Will it provide decent, affordable homes?

Q11a Will it improve access for all to health, leisure and recreational facilities?

Health: Safeguard and 11 improve community health, safety and well-being. Will it improve and enhance the district's Q11b green infrastructure network?

Economy: Develop a Q12a Will it increase accessibility of suitable dynamic, diverse and employment within Chiltern and South Bucks? knowledge-based economy 12 that excels in innovation with higher value, lower impact activities. Will it encourage business start-ups in the Q12b area?

Habitat Regulations Assessments

Sustainability Appraisals

Strategic Environmental Assessments

Landscape Character Assessments

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments

Green Belt Reviews

Expert Witness

Ecological Impact Assessments

Habitat and Ecology Surveys

Lepus Consulting t: 01242 525222 1 Bath Street w: www.lepusconsulting.com Cheltenham e: [email protected] Gloucestershire GL50 1YE