Case Reference: 3303868

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 8-9 and 12-16 and 20 December 2022
Site visit made on 15 December 2022
by Stephen Wilkinson BA BPl DIP LA MBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8th March 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/22/3303868
Land between Lodge Lane and Burtons Lane, Little Chalfont, Amersham,
HP4 4AJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council.
• The application Ref PL/21/4632/OA, dated 30 November 2021, was refused by a notice
dated 25 April 2022.
• The development proposed is demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of
residential dwellings including affordable housing, custom build (Use Class C3),
retirement homes and care home (Use Class C2), new vehicular access point off Burton
Lane, improvements to existing Lodge Lane access including works to Lodge Lane and
Church Grove, new pedestrian and cycle bridge and associated highway works, a local
centre including a community building (Use Classes E(a)(b)(e), F2(b), land safeguarded
for educational use (Use Classes E(f) and F1(a), public open space and associated
infrastructure (matters to be considered at this stage: Burtons Lane and Lodge Lane
access).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for demolition
of all existing buildings and the erection of residential dwellings, including
affordable housing, custom build (Use Class C3), retirement homes and care
home (Use Class C2), new vehicular access point off Burton Lane,
improvements to existing Lodge Lane access including works to Lodge Lane
and Church Grove, new pedestrian and cycle bridge and associated highway
works, a local centre including a community building (Use Classes E(a)(b)(e),
F2(b), land safeguarded for educational use (Use Classes E(f) and F1(a), public
open space and associated infrastructure (matters to be considered at this
stage: Burtons Lane and Lodge Lane access), on land between Lodge Lane and
Burtons Lane, Little Chalfont, Amersham HP4 4AJ, in accordance with the terms
of the application, Ref PL/21/4632/OA, dated 30 November 2021, subject to
the conditions included in the schedule to this decision.
Procedural Matters
2. The Development Plan includes the Saved Policies of the Chiltern District Local
Plan (1997) including Adopted Alterations 2001 (the LP) and the Core Strategy
for Chiltern District (2011) (the CS).
3. A joint draft Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan was withdrawn following
concerns from the Examining Inspector with regard to the duty to cooperate
with neighbouring authorities. Its policies carry no weight in this decision
although the main parties consider that its background evidence is a material
consideration. In my view, any weight is limited as it has not been formally
tested.
4. The appeal was accompanied by a schedule of planning obligations under the
provisions of Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended). This is provided in the form of a deed of agreement between
the appellant and the Council and its provisions were discussed at the Inquiry.
With the agreement of the parties, an engrossed version, dated 30 December
2020 was submitted shortly after the Inquiry closed.
5. The appeal is in outline, with only means of access to be determined at this
stage. All other matters are reserved for future consideration. The application
was accompanied by Parameter Plans, dealing with Land Use and Green
Infrastructure, Building Heights, Access and Movement and Demolition. These
plans were amended in advance of the Inquiry. Following discussion with the
parties during the Inquiry, I am satisfied that the revisions do not prejudice the
interest of any parties.
6. Given the scale of the proposed development, the appeal was accompanied by
an Environmental Statement as required by Regulation 5(1) of the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. I am
satisfied that the revised plans do not prejudice the EIA.
Main Issues
7. The Council’s Decision Notice sets out eleven reasons for refusal. Following the
close of the Inquiry, having heard all the evidence, I am content that
affordable housing provision is no longer a main issue. I have also refined the
wording of the main issues relating to landscape, character and appearance.
8. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. There was no dispute in this regard
that the appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green
Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
It also lies adjacent to, but outside the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. With all that in mind, and having heard all the evidence to the Inquiry,
I consider that the main issues in this case are:
1. the effect of the proposal on openness and purposes of including land
within the Green Belt;
2. the effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area,
including the landscape and scenic beauty of the Chilterns Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Burtons Lane to Doggett’s Wood
Lane Area of Special Character;
3. the effect of the proposal on highway safety;
4. whether or not the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of
protected species and protected habitats;
5. whether or not the scheme includes the infrastructure necessary,
directly required and related in scale and kind to the proposed
development;
6. the effect of the development proposed on the Chilterns Beechwoods
Special Area of Conservation and Ashridge Commons and Woods Site
of Special Scientific Interest;
7. whether or not the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of
best and most versatile agricultural land;
8. whether the appeal scheme would increase the risk of surface water
flooding; and
9. whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other
harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations such as to provide
the very special circumstances required to justify development in the
Green Belt.
9. In advance of the Inquiry, Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs) on
planning, ecology, highways and housing land supply were agreed between the
main parties, with technical notes agreed on flood risk and air quality.
Accordingly, the parties through the SoCGs have indicated that the reasons for
refusal relating to each of these matters have been addressed. The main
parties also agreed that the issue of best and most versatile agricultural land is
a matter for the planning balance. The S106 addresses other matters as well,
including the amount of affordable housing.
10. However, these matters remain as main issues and I made it clear in my
Inspector Note sent out before the start of the Inquiry that I was content to
receive further comments on them during the Inquiry, particularly from
interested parties. Accordingly, these issues are addressed in this decision
although its primary focus is on the Green Belt, Landscape and Design (Issues
1, 2 and 9).
Reasons for the Decision
11. The appeal site extends to some 29.7 hectares (ha), with its eastern half
formerly occupied by Little Chalfont Golf Club which was closed several years
ago. The club house and parking area, accessed from Lodge Lane, are still in
place, with its fairways identified by incidental bands of landscaping and
occasional tees. The western half of the site comprises open pasture. Based on
the Agricultural Land Classification system, this is classified as Grade 3
agricultural land. Homestead Farm, a private dwelling, is set within a generous
garden and located on the north western edge of the site. It is understood that
the fields have not been used for many years for agricultural purposes. There
are bands of Ancient Woodland at Stonydean Wood in the centre of the site,
and Netherdown Spring Wood which runs along the southern edge of the site.
12. The appellant states that the design of the proposed scheme has been
landscape led, involving a ‘Re-imaging of Metroland’. Two residential
development parcels would be located on the northern slope of the dry valley
located north, east and west of Stonydean Wood. A primary school, retirement
and care accommodation would be located towards the northern edge, with a
centrally located community hub. A proposed pedestrian link at the northern
end of the site would extend over the rail line, allowing direct access to the
centre of Little Chalfont. Overall, around 12.5ha of the site would be
developed.
13. The scheme would retain the belts of Ancient Woodland with landscape
‘buffers’, enhance biodiversity, introduce a Suitable Alternative Natural
Greenspace (SANG) and would include play space and allotments/community
orchard.
14. The Parameter plans identify that the residential areas would be of 2.5/3-
storeys in height, with densities varying from 35-65 dwelling per hectare (dph).
The mixed use central hub would be up to 3-storeys (16 metres) in height and
the primary school 2-storeys. Access points from Burtons Lane and Lodge Lane
would serve the development, although there would be no connection between
the two. Instead, movement across the site would be reserved for
pedestrians/cyclists.
Green Belt
15. Although there is no definition of ‘openness’ within the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework), the Government Planning Practice Guidance
(PPG) refers to assessments of openness as being informed through
consideration of spatial and volumetric aspects, the duration of the
development and the degree of activity likely to be generated.1
16. The scale of development proposed would have spatial and visual impacts on
the site when compared to the extent of the existing development, which
comprises a club house, car park and a collection of buildings around
Homestead Farm.
17. The site’s context is determined by its relationship with surrounding
development. The site is separated from Little Chalfont by the Metropolitan
railway line, which broadly defines the settlement boundary. Although there is
development to the south, including Honours Yard, a vehicle depot, and
housing on Long Walk, these are included in the Green Belt. To the east,
beyond Lodge Lane, the site is open to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) and to the west, along Burtons Lane, there is low
density residential development which forms part of the Area of Special
Character (ASC).
18. The site’s allocation (SP BP6), within the withdrawn joint local plan carries no
weight. However, I recognise that the Green Belt assessments which informed
the allocation do carry significant weight. These assessments included the
appeal site as part of larger sites.
19. Scores were recorded for Purposes a)-d) of the Green Belt, as defined by
Paragraph 138 of the Framework. In turn these purposes are; a) checking the
unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, b) prevention of neighbouring towns
merging into one another, c) assisting in safeguarding of the countryside from
encroachment, d) preserving the setting and special character of historic towns
and e) assisting in urban regeneration. Purpose e) was not assessed.
20. There is a consistent thread throughout each of the assessments that identifies
that the northern part, within which the appeal site lies, contributes less to
each of these Purposes when compared to the southern part. Low and
moderate scores were recorded for Purposes b) and c) respectively. These are
matters confirmed by my site visit.
1 Reference ID: 64-001-020190722
21. I find that large parts of the site have a semi urban context defined by its
proximity to the busy rail line and surrounding residential areas, which extend
along Burtons Lane, the inclusion of the existing golf clubhouse and car park
and proximity of the Honours Yard depot. The eastern part of the site, which
was the former golf course, reflects its recent use and cannot be regarded as
‘countryside’ as such.
22. Although the appeal scheme would result in development extending south
towards Chorley Wood, its impacts would be limited as acknowledged by the
Council2. One assessment identified that release of the parcel would not
undermine the performance of the wider Green Belt3. This is consistent with my
findings given the site’s context. Extensive areas of Green Belt would still be
retained between Little Chalfont and Chorley Wood.
23. Whilst the scheme partly involves development on agricultural land, the site’s
containment by existing housing along Burtons Lane on its west side, Lodge
Lane to the east and the proposed SANG to the south beyond which is Long
Walk would prevent encroachment into surrounding countryside.
24. Paragraph 148 of the Framework confirms that when considering planning
applications, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
Although I regard the site’s contribution to the Green Belt Purposes, as limited,
it remains largely undeveloped and open. The appeal scheme would result in a
loss of openness in both spatial and visual terms but this harm would be
limited due to the site’s existing context and strong boundaries.
25. For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme conflicts with Policies
GB2 of the LP, Policy CS1 of the CS and Paragraphs 137, 138, 147, 148, 149
and paragraph 150 of the Framework, which together and among other things
seek to protect the Green Belt from development through concentrating
development within existing settlements.
Character and appearance
Landscape effects
26. The site lies in Landscape Character Area (LCA) 18.3 Little Chalfont Rolling
Farmland. This is characterised by rolling topography resulting from its varied
geology and comprises arable farmland enclosed by boundary hedges with
belts of Ancient Woodland with a scatted settlement pattern. Significantly, this
description does not refer to dry valleys, although this is identified as a
characteristic of the adjacent AONB.
27. The appeal site includes features consistent with LCA18.3. These include a
rolling topography, with a ‘plateau’ at around 120m AOD4 within its north
section. This drops to the west towards Stonydean Wood, housing in Village
Way and Loudhams Wood Lane, and to the east towards Lodge Lane. To the
south, it drops to a shallow, dry chalk valley which extends along the southern
edge of the appeal site. From the bottom of the dry valley, the site rises to
include an area of former pasture that is almost entirely surrounded by
woodland and hedgerow belts.
2 Mr Fannon XX
3 CD8.5
4 Above Ordnance Datum
28. The appeal site includes some features which distinguish it from the LCA, with
areas of pasture rather than arable farmland, the ‘landscaped’ features of the
former golf course, views of surrounding residential development and Honours
Yard and the domestic curtilage of Homestead Farm. These features are
consistent with the Council’s landscape assessment which informed the now
withdrawn plan and which identifies that the suburban edge of Little Chalfont
filters into the site5.
29. Both the main parties agree that the site is not a valued landscape within the
meaning of Paragraph 174a) of the Framework and the Guidelines for
Landscape and Visual Assessment (GLVIA). Although this view is not shared by
an interested party6, the concept of a valued landscape is not defined in the
Framework. The leading court case7 on what constitutes a valued landscape is
the Stroud judgement, which deals with whether the countryside in question
has demonstrable physical attributes (rather than just popularity) which would
take the site beyond mere countryside. In other words, whether the attributes
take the landscape beyond the ‘ordinary’ or ‘everyday’. Whilst the main parties
differ on the degree to which the appeal site includes features typical or
representative of the Little Chalfont Rolling Farmland landscape, they do not
raise the area to the level of a valued landscape in Framework terms. I have no
reason to disagree.
30. For sites not identified as ‘valued’, landscape guidance8 advises that their value
may be derived from an assessment of characteristics which include natural
and cultural heritage, landscape condition, distinctiveness, recreational and
functional value.
31. The site does not represent a rare landscape for this part of the LCA, despite
the presence of Ancient Woodland. It has no recreational value since the
closure of the private golf course, and no footpaths traverse it. The site does
have natural heritage features derived from its topography, including the dry
valley and the belts of Ancient Woodland. The site does not include features of
any cultural interest.
32. The presence of these natural features has to be balanced against the absence
of other features to which the Guidance refers and those features which are
uncharacteristic of the LCA18.3 which I have referred to above. For these
reasons, I find that that the site has a medium landscape value.
Character of the site
33. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application
(LVIA) identifies that the proposed development would alter the field pattern
within the site and, through the creation of the development platforms, would
alter the profile of its natural topography, leading to the loss of natural
grassland. The new and widened access points on Burtons Lane and Lodge
Lane would also alter the character of the site’s boundaries.
34. The form of development proposed across the northern part of the site would
represent an extension of Little Chalfont in an area largely free of development.
5 CD8.7 Landscape Assessment for GB options
6 Michelle Bolger Landscape Architects
7 Stroud District Council v SSCLG and Gladman Developments Ltd
8 CD5.6 TGN 02/21 - the Landscape Institute 2021
These changes would be permanent and irreversible and would have a major
adverse impact but would be restricted to just the northern part of the site.
35. However, these changes have to be balanced against other aspects of the
appeal scheme. These include the protection and enhancement of the Ancient
Woodland, the retention of the southern field, the creation of the SANG,
recognised by Natural England, additional planting and Biodiversity Net Gain
(BNG), calculated at around 20%. For these reasons, I conclude therefore that
overall, the effects would be moderate adverse.
Trees and Hedgerows
36. The scheme would involve the loss of trees and hedgerows. The Council
contends that the appellant’s LVIA underplays the extent of this loss.
37. Across the site as a whole, there would be a loss of one Category A tree, 15
Category B and 53 Category C trees. Although a significant proportion of trees
outside the belts of Ancient Woodland would be lost, these are primarily
Category C and many are less than 10 metres in height making only a limited
contribution to the character of the area at the present time. For these
reasons, I find that their loss would not undermine the site’s overall character.
The landscape impact in this regard would be minor adverse.
38. Hedgerows form structural features both on the site’s boundaries and within
the site. Of the 13 hedgerows surveyed9, five would be completely removed
whilst three would be partially removed. However, several of these make only a
limited contribution to the site’s landscape character, representing golf course
features delineating fairways, its boundaries and the boundary of Homestead
Farm.
39. Others though are structurally important including H8 and H1310. Although my
attention was drawn to the age of Hedgerow H8, the plans originally identified
that a significant length would be removed but this has been altered by the
revised Parameter plan, resulting in a net hedgerow loss of around 20 metres
required to enable the through pedestrian and cycle route. H13 would only be
partially removed to enable the road access into the site from Burtons Lane.
40. The proposed scheme would involve significant areas of hedgerow planting and
enhancement of existing features as part of the SANG. I am satisfied that the
amount of retained and additional hedgerow planting would retain hedgerows
as an important feature of this site.
41. The Council objects to the proposed replacement planting on the basis that
even after 15 years it would not reach comparable levels of scale, species
complexity or visual enclosure when compared to that existing. However, I find
that these matters could be satisfactorily addressed through an appropriate
species mix and spacing addressed by a planning condition. For these reasons,
the landscape impact in this regard would result in only a minor adverse
change.
9 CD1.18.5 Appx 12.7. I have used references from this study
10 CD18.5 Vol1 Chapter 13
Dry Valley
42. A defining principle adopted by the appellant for the scheme design is the
retention of the dry valley11. All the parties at the Inquiry agreed that this is a
sensitive receptor. I have no reason to disagree. It extends from just west of
Burtons Lane, through the southern part of the site, and turns north east into
the AONB, above which is the embanked rail line.
43. The LVIA does not define the extent of the dry valley required to be free of
development to ensure that it remains a legible feature within the scheme. The
valley does not have a consistent profile through the site, with the steepest
part being the northern slope lying immediately east of Stonydean Wood.
Beyond this point the contours broaden, most markedly to the east abutting
Lodge Lane. However, the southern slope is more consistent in profile, allowing
for clearer definition of the valley profile which would be retained free from
development.
44. The Masterplan identifies that the western development parcel would not
extend below the 115 metre contour, with only a finger of housing proposed
below this height, located just west of Stonydean Wood. The eastern
development parcel extends down to around the 107 metre contour. Due to
the gentler gradient of land in this area of the site, the extent of land free from
development lying above the contour increases in area This would maintain the
definition of the dry valley in the site when viewed from Lodge Lane.
45. Inquiry time was spent on comparing the extent of land free from development
in the appeal scheme with that included in the site capacity study12 for the
housing allocation in the now withdrawn plan. However, comparison is
unwarranted given that the draft allocation was for a completely different
scheme from that before me, which included development on the southern
slope on Honour’s Yard and on what is now proposed to be the SANG. This
would have potentially resulted in a different form of enclosure around the dry
valley. That is not the situation in this scheme, where development is confined
to just the northern slope.
46. The dry valley would remain as a legible natural feature through the site.
Although the extent of land free from development would narrow by Stonydean
Wood, the buffer areas retained free from development around the Ancient
Woodland belts would allow views from both the proposed access points
through the valley.
47. The valley’s most sensitive point lies at its interface with the AONB, by the
Lodge Lane access. Here, however, the extent of the dry valley retained free
from development allows for an area of transition from the site to the AONB.
The landscape impacts of the appeal scheme on this feature would be minor
adverse.
Lodge Lane and the setting of the AONB
48. Lodge Lane follows the profile of the dry valley, extending down from Long
Walk before rising from beneath the rail bridge to the junction with Church
Grove. It is of insufficient width for two- way traffic and does not include
pedestrian footways and lighting. It lies between the site boundary and the
11 CD 1.11 Design and Access Statement
12 CD7.3A
AONB, falling within its setting. Notwithstanding the presence of the rail bridge,
the lane is a single entity, characterised by wooded embankments which
increase in height and steepness north of the bridge. The lane’s landscape
character is defined by the extent of tree coverage and the tapestry of its
understorey; these are characteristics recognised by the Conservation Board13.
49. The Conservation Board objects to the carriageway widening which it
maintains, would have an urbanising effect leading to an adverse impact on the
setting of the AONB.
50. The widened access point would involve the removal of trees and hedgerows.
These include two B grade trees, with the remainder either C category or ‘U’
value, which do not make a significant contribution to the landscape character
or qualities of the AONB. In any event, the tree cover that would be retained to
both sides of the proposed access on this frontage means that there would be
only minor effects on the setting of the AONB at this point.
51. More extensive works of around 240 metres in length are proposed for the lane
north of the proposed access, involving widening of the carriageway by around
0.7 metres. This would necessitate the removal of about 1 metre width of
embankment, including the removal of trees within Group W13, and their
understorey, and the erection of a retaining wall of around 140 metres
length14.
52. During the Inquiry I was presented with additional information on the
anticipated loss of trees along this part of Lodge Lane15 which identified that
seven and not fourteen trees would be removed from Group W13. I understand
the concerns of both the Council and the Conservation Board, but this is a well
treed bank which benefits from mature trees located across its full extent. The
loss of seven trees along the lowest levels of the bank would have a negligible
adverse impact on the setting of the AONB at this point, given the number of
trees on the western edge of the lane.
53. I recognise that the proposed retaining wall would initially have an urbanising
effect but this would not prevent a newly planted understorey from growing
over time.
54. There would be minor effects with no material harm to the setting of the AONB
by Year 15 (Y15), arising from the proposed works to both the widened access
and carriageway.
Conclusions on landscape effects
55. Overall, I find that the site has a medium landscape value, given that it
includes features uncharacteristic of its LCA. It has a medium susceptibility to
the appeal scheme, given that over 50% of the site would remain free from
built development and its most distinctive landscape features, including belts of
Ancient Woodland and boundary hedgerows, would be enhanced and protected.
The proposed development would broadly respect the form of the dry valley.
13 Conservation Board letter 23 August 2022
14 CD 1.22A
15 CD7.22 Waterman Tree Note
56. In my view, by Y15, the proposed mitigation planting and retained landscape
features would allow the integration of the proposed development leading to an
overall moderate adverse impact.
57. Overall, the proposed works to Lodge Lane would not result in material harm to
the distinctive profile of this lane and the setting of the AONB.
Visual effects
58. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) is drawn tightly around the perimeter of
the site, reflecting its self-containment which results from its topography and
extent of existing tree belts. This is confirmed by the LVIA, which identifies that
beyond its immediate context, views of the appeal scheme would have a
negligible effect.
59. I address the viewpoints and those receptors most affected, based on the
accompanied site visit completed during the Inquiry. As a general point I
acknowledge that the most significant effects would be experienced during
construction, but I restrict my comments to its Y15 effects.
Lodge Lane
60. By Y15, the proposed works for the western edge of Lodge Lane would have
had sufficient time to mature. The approach from either direction would be
largely masked by both existing trees and mitigation planting. Accordingly,
views would be limited for pedestrians with both cyclists and motorists having
only glimpses of the eastern parcel.
61. To the south of the rail bridge, the signage, lighting and road markings
associated with the new access would be visible, but only directly at the access
point. At this point, clear views of the road and the eastern development parcel
would be possible.
62. Although the Council assesses the impact on these views as being moderate to
major adverse, I find that the effects on pedestrians, the most sensitive
receptor would by Y15, be limited.
AONB
63. Walkers along foothpath PROW LCF/11/1 through New Hanging Wood within
the AONB, are sensitive receptors. From within the wood, the impact of the
new access its road signage and lighting and the eastern parcel, would be
largely masked by the depth and density of surrounding woodland. At this
point, any impact on views would be negligible.
Loudhams Wood Lane
64. Receptors would be the occupiers of properties with rear windows facing
towards the site. These properties are separated from the appeal site by a thick
belt of mature vegetation.
65. The Parameter plans identify that new development along the western
development parcel would be up to 2.5 storeys in height. The proposed height,
together with the separation between the receptors and the development
parcel, would be sufficient to minimise views, with any impact being minor
adverse.
Burtons Lane
66. Presently, there is an existing footway along the east side of Burtons Lane,
adjacent to the western edge of the appeal site. The scheme would involve the
removal of a significant tree and a length of boundary hedgerow to create the
road access but development would be set behind a thick landscape belt on this
boundary. These changes would afford northbound footway users direct views
of the western development parcel, but only on the approach to the proposed
access. Further south the retained hedgerows would restrict views into the site.
67. Walking south, whilst intermittent views of the development may be possible
through the boundary hedge, the dominant view would be towards the retained
dry valley and Loudhams Wood.
68. For these reasons, despite the sensitivity of pedestrians, the impact on views
would be limited.
Village Way
69. Receptors would be the occupiers of several properties at the end of the road,
with rear windows facing towards the site. A thick tree belt extends across the
boundary between their rear gardens and the appeal site. The appeal scheme
includes residential development of around 2.5-3 storeys immediately to the
rear, on rising land.
70. Despite the change in level between existing properties and the appeal site,
and the height of the proposed dwellings, views would be limited due to the
depth of existing screening. Furthermore, even were the proposed MUGA16 to
include floodlights, these would only be glimpsed. I conclude that the impact on
views from the existing residential properties would be limited.
Dark Skies
71. South of the existing urban edge of Little Chalfont, the appeal site represents
an area of dark skies. The Conservation Board has raised an objection to the
potential loss of dark skies and its impact on wildlife corridors.
72. I am satisfied, however, that the degree of natural enclosure around the site,
together with the use of conditions controlling matters such as light spillage
and intrusion, could sufficiently mitigate any wider harm in this regard.
Conclusions on visual effects
73. The visual effects of the appeal scheme are largely contained within a ZTV of
limited extent. The most sensitive receptors would be residents of surrounding
properties with views of the scheme which, largely through a combination of
topography and existing planting, would be limited. Footpath/footway users
within the AONB would experience only limited adverse effects.
Burtons Lane Area of Special Character (ASC)
74. The western part of the site lies adjacent to the Burtons Lane ASC identified in
the South Bucks Townscape Study. This includes Green Suburban Roads or
Woodland Roads. Common to each of these typologies are large detached
16 Multi Use Games Area
residential properties set in spacious plots along broad avenues of mature
trees. These areas have densities of around 5 dph.
75. The Council’s objection is twofold in respect of the scheme’s impacts on the
ASC. Firstly, notwithstanding the scheme’s density, the objection relates to the
proposed disposition17 of development within the site. In particular, that the
western parcel’s set back from the frontage to Burtons Lane is excessive and
that the separation distance between the western parcel and the rear of
properties on Loudhams Wood Lane would undermine a strong perimeter block
structure.
76. Secondly, the Council identifies the ASC as having a ‘high landscape
sensitivity’, resulting in the appeal scheme having a moderate adverse impact
on this area18.
77. In my view, the nature of development suggested by the Parameter plans
allows for a break between the surrounding urban form and the character of
what is proposed. Separation of the scheme from the frontage to Burtons Lane
and from the rear of properties in Loudhams Wood Lane with additional
landscaping, allows the scheme to sit as a new form of development without
comparison to the ASC. In this way, its physical impact on the character of the
ASC would be significantly reduced.
78. For these reasons whilst I recognise that the ASC has a degree of sensitivity,
the disposition of the western parcel would respect this. I consider that the
scheme would not adversely impact on the character or appearance of the ASC.
Overall conclusions on character and appearance
79. The Council states that the appeal scheme’s character and appearance would
conflict with several policies.
80. Policy CS22 seeks to protect the setting of, and views to and from the AONB.
Although the Council refers to LP Policy LSQ1, this refers solely to development
within the AONB and has only limited application to the proposed scheme which
lies outside its boundaries. The proposed access works and the widening of
Lodge Lane are limited in extent and would have only a limited effect on the
setting of the AONB and would not undermine its landscape and scenic beauty.
81. Local Plan Policy GB30 seeks to protect the rural landscape and Policies GC4
and TW6 require the protection of hedgerows and that there should be no loss
of trees. The Council identifies that the scheme would conflict with the site’s
natural features including hedgerows, trees and woodland. However, the areas
of Ancient Woodland would be protected and, although there would be a loss of
trees and hedgerows across the site, this would principally affect Category C or
unclassified trees and could be off-set by mitigation planting. I acknowledge
however, that the development would erode the site’s natural landscape
features in conflict with Policy GB30 of the LP, but this would be largely
contained to just one area of the site.
82. That said, there would be no conflict with Policy CS32, as it would open the site
up to public access, include a SANG and connect to the footpath network within
17 Mr Fannon PoE
18 Ms Huijer PoE para 4.4.9.13
the local area. The scheme would therefore contribute to the area’s green
infrastructure.
83. To conclude, whilst I find that there would be no conflict with Policy LSQ1 and
H4 and only limited conflict with Policies TW6, GC1, GC4 and GB30 of the LP
and Policies CS22 and CS32 of the Core Strategy, the degree of impact on the
site’s overall character and appearance would be limited in extent.
Highway Safety
84. The Council’s original objection concerned the appellant’s traffic modelling for
junctions in the local area. Following receipt of new evidence, the main parties
completed a Statement of Common Ground which identified that there were no
outstanding areas of disagreement. However, a number of interested parties
maintain objections which I address below.
Lodge Lane
85. During my site visits, the lane was only occasionally used by pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles, although I appreciate that these only provide a snapshot
in time.
86. I recognise that its widening could lead to an increase in traffic which could
travel at higher speeds than at present despite the retention of the existing
40mph speed limit. However, despite these changes the risks of greater conflict
with pedestrians would be limited due to inclusion within the scheme of
pedestrian/cycle access routes which lead to the centre of Little Chalfont and
the rail station.
87. Whilst interested parties suggest that the design of the widening scheme may
not fully adhere to the advice included in Manual for Streets, the County
Council, as the Highway Authority with responsibility for highway safety, is
satisfied with the proposed layout and does not object. I am satisfied that
these matters were fully addressed by the Stage 1 RSA19 and that there would
be no material harm in this regard.
Traffic Impact Analysis
88. Other concerns relate to an apparent ‘downward adjustment’ in trip numbers
for the morning peak, with the modelling assuming that large numbers of
vehicles ‘bypass’ the centre of Little Chalfont. Furthermore, other assumptions
appear to ‘double discount’ the number of ‘local’ trips to the proposed
community hub within the site.
89. I recognise that the traffic modelling underwent successive iterations on the
traffic movements around the Church Grove/Amersham Road/Stoney Lane
junction. This resulted in traffic figures being revised and substituted with
historic manual counts and then tested using various adjustments based on
other modelling evidence. I am satisfied that the ‘lost’ figures have now been
appropriately accounted for.
90. In respect of the size of the proposed store, the 1,000 square metres
floorspace included in the appeal scheme include a range of uses from Ea), Eb)
Ef) and F2b), covering retail, café/restaurant, medical services and meeting
hall, and not just retail space as the interested party suggests. As a result, I
19 Road Safety Audit
am satisfied that concerns over a material increase in traffic coming to the site
from outside the area to shop in the proposed store, are unlikely to arise.
Capacity of Roughwood Lane
91. I accept that there would be an increase in traffic arising from the appeal
scheme on local roads. However, I do not accept that this could lead to an
unacceptable increase on the volume of traffic using Roughwood Lane as a
consequence of ‘rat-running’ to the A413 when the A404 is blocked. Traffic
counts20 identify that this lane has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional traffic arising in such circumstances. I find that there would be no
material harm in this regard, during times of stress on the strategic road
network.
Cycle route along the east side of Burtons Lane
92. The Parish Council expressed concerns over whether there would be sufficient
space along the east side of the Burtons Lane for the proposed pedestrian/cycle
path.
93. The works required would extend for around 500 metres along the east side of
Burtons Lane and would be contained within highway land, lie outside the
boundary of the appeal site and do not require planning permission. The
accompanied site visit identified that five trees would need to be removed, but
that space of around 3 metres width could be developed, which would be
sufficient for the shared path. The shallow drain along this side of the lane
could be culverted to ensure sufficient space was created.
94. Although there would still be pinch points along the route, it could
accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists safely. The route would provide
direct access from the site to the centre of Little Chalfont. I am satisfied that
these arrangements could deliver the shared space as suggested by the
appellant. These matters would form part of a separate agreement negotiated
under the Highway Act 1980.
95. In consideration of all these matters, I conclude that the appeal scheme does
not conflict with Policies CS25 and CS26 and the Council’s Highways
Development Management Guidance,21 which together and among other things
seek ensure that the development of transport infrastructure keeps pace with
growth.
Whether or not the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of
protected species and protected habitats Habitats
96. In advance of the Inquiry, the main parties agreed a SoCG relating to this
matter. In light of that, the Council did not pursue during the Inquiry the
related reason for refusal included in its decision. The SoCG identifies that
protected species including Bats, Badgers, Reptiles including Slow Worms and
Grass Snakes, common amphibians, breeding birds and a common assemblage
of invertebrates are found across the site. These species are found in a range
of common habitats including grassland, scrub, ruderal vegetation, woodland,
native hedgerows and garden.
20 IDX5
21 Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Development Management Guidance: Managing the transport and
travel impact of new developments (July 2018)
97. Notwithstanding the outstanding concerns of one of the objectors, I am
satisfied that the completed surveys included with the appeal for both
protected species and habitats are sufficient to allow for an informed view on
the likely impacts of the proposed development. I acknowledge concerns
regarding the potential for bat roosts in trees on Lodge Lane. However, it is
unknown at this stage whether a particular tree would be affected by the
proposed widening scheme. Further surveys would be required in line with the
Bat Conservation Trust’s guidelines which could identify rarer bats if the appeal
was to succeed. That could be secured by condition.
98. In respect of Great Crested Newts (GCN), whilst surveys were required for all
water bodies within 500 metres of the site boundary, it would seem not all of
these were surveyed. The interested party’s report22 acknowledges that these
ponds would be ‘below average’ in terms of their potential as habitats for GCN
and each lies at some distance from the site. Migration of GCN across a road,
through residential properties and the rail line to the site, would therefore be
unlikely.
99. The BNG calculation is derived from the extent of semi natural habitats to be
retained along with those habitats of the highest ecological interest. This
amounts to uplifts of around 29.68% in relation to habitat units and 42.13%
for hedgerow units. Although the interested party took issue with the
calculations adopted by the appellant, it was acknowledged that only a
marginally different score results.
100. Although enabling legislation was enacted in November 2021, there is no legal
requirement to secure BNG until the Government issues guidance for a 10%
biodiversity net gain. Nevertheless, the S106 includes the proposed mitigation
measures as a benefit of the scheme.
101. For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme does not conflict with CS
Policy CS24 which seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Infrastructure
102. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57
of the Framework set a number of tests for planning obligations: they must be
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly
related to the development, and be fairly and reasonably related in scale and
kind to the development.
103. The completed S106 requires that 40% of the dwellings proposed are secured
as affordable housing units, with an appropriate mix in line with the Council’s
local housing needs. Provision would be phased, linked to occupation of the
market housing and that first lets would be through the Bucks Home Choice
Scheme. Other provisions include mortgage protection for First Homes. These
arrangements are supported by Policies CS8 and CS10 of the CS.
104. Other covenants secure provision of the SANG and its management by a
dedicated management company responsible for open space, the sustainable
drainage scheme (SuDS) and communal areas, pursuant to CS Policies CS31
and CS32.
22 BIOSCAN
105. The S106 also includes financial contributions towards transport measures for
housing and the retirement home, the car club (at £250.00 per dwelling and
£1,000 for the retirement home) and a travel plan and monitoring fee of
£5,000. These measures are supported by Policies CS24, CS25 of the CS and
Saved Policies TR2 and TR5 of the LP, which seek the provision of a genuine
choice of transport modes.
106. Arrangements for the procurement of a registered care home operator are
secured by the Agreement, as are provisions to restrict occupation of the home
to those who are aged 55years and over, with financial contributions for a basic
care package. These provisions are in line with Policy CS12 of the CS.
107. Other covenants require the provision of a LEAP, LAP and NEAP23 within the
site, and that the SANG should be at least 10ha in area. These provisions are
appropriate given the scale of development proposed and are supported by
Policy CS31 of the CS.
108. The Agreement includes the provision of land within the scheme for up to 15
self- and/or custom-build dwellings. Although there is no local policy support
for such, it is supported by legislation24 and Paragraph 62 of the Framework.
109. The scheme includes the safeguarding of land for a new primary school, the
delivery of which would be tied to trigger points based on housing delivery.
There is some doubt, as to whether this would proceed, or whether an existing
local school would be extended to accommodate the identified need. Covenants
included in the S106 include financial contributions towards education provision
based on a formula for each dwelling, depending on their size. This is
supported by CS Policies CS29 and CS31.
110. The S106 also includes the provision of land for a community building within
the site, in accordance with CS Policy CS29. The Parish Council requested that
instead, the money could be directed towards the refurbishment of the existing
community hall in Little Chalfont25. Whatever the merits of that possibility, I
can only consider the arrangement that is proposed as part of the appeal
scheme.
111. The agreement includes a financial contribution of £3,000 towards
signage/wayfinding to encourage access to the AONB, in line with Policy CS32
of the CS, as well as contributions towards the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC
SAMM26, which I address later in this decision.
112. Other obligations secure employment opportunities for local people during the
construction period. Although there is no locally adopted policy to support this,
it is consistent with Paragraph 81 of the Framework which seeks, among other
things, to support economic growth and activity.
113. The S106 includes the provision of infrastructure which is necessary, directly
required and fairly and reasonably related in scale to this development. I am
satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of Regulation
122 of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework.
23 Locally Equipped Area for Play, Local Area for Play, Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play
24 The Self Build and Custom Build Act 2017
25 IDX 26
26 Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy for the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC
Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ashridge
Commons and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
114. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2017 (as amended) as competent authority I am required to undertake an
Appropriate Assessment of the development on the basis of its Likely
Significant Effects on the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC as a European Site. The
mitigation proposed to address these effects are the provision of SANG and
Strategic Access Management and Monitoring.
115. Having regard to the submissions of Natural England and relevant planning
policy, including the Council’s Chiltern Beechwoods Special Protection Area
Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document, I consider that the
proposed measures would adequately mitigate the recreational effects of the
proposed scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects,
so that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the SAC and its
SSSI. The mitigation would be secured and managed via the s106 Agreement.
116. These covenants are supported by Saved Policy NC1 of the LP. The provision of
the SANG within the site, and its management plan, as included within the
Agreement, are supported by CS Policy CS24.
117. I am satisfied that each of these covenants fall within the provisions of
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework.
118. The Council’s objection related to the accuracy of trip modelling for the appeal
scheme and its implications for air quality. This has been resolved27.
119. Results from the updated traffic modelling identifies that at each of the
receptor points results are predicted to be below the nitrogen dioxide (NOx)
annual mean objective in 2026 and the same for particulate matter (related to
the size of particles in the atmosphere). Both main parties agreed a Technical
Note28 on this matter and the Council did not pursue its original objection
during the Inquiry.
120. Natural England was consulted as part of the appeal and confirmed that its only
concern related to impacts on the pathway derived from recreational activities
arising from the scheme on the SAC. Air quality has been discounted29. No
substantiated evidence is before me to counter this view.
121. I am content, therefore that there would be no adverse impact on human
health or biodiversity including on the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC.
122. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the
revised modelling fully addresses the Council’s original objection. For this
reason, I conclude that that the appeal scheme would not conflict with CS
Policies CS25, CS26 and Saved Policy GC9 of the LP.
Flood Risk
123. The appeal site lies within Flood Zone 1 with a low risk of fluvial flooding,
although it includes two flow routes. The route which follows a west-east
direction through the site results in some ponding on its eastern edge. The
27 SoCG on Transport Matters
28 CD1.43
29 Environmental Statement
appeal scheme includes an infiltration based system, with run-off attenuated
within basins located across the site. The critical issue is whether the appeal
scheme would lead to an increase in flood risk beyond the site.
124. A Technical Note30 submitted with the appeal addresses the substance of the
Council’s original objection, including updated modelling, infiltration rate
testing, the location of the SUDS basins and surface water drainage
calculations. In light of that Technical Note, the Council did not pursue its
objections in this regard.
125. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am content that the
development would not lead to an increase in flooding off-site and find no
conflict with Policy CS4 of the CS and its related guidance31.
Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Land
126. The appeal site comprises Grade 3 agricultural land, although no evidence has
been presented on whether this falls predominantly within Grade 3a or 3b:
Grade 3a land is classed as BMV agricultural land, whilst grade 3b is not.
127. I was advised, that across the local area, there are considerable tracts of Grade
3 land32. In the scheme of things therefore, the loss of around 14ha as a
consequence of the development proposed would not, even were the whole site
classed as BMV agricultural land, materially prejudice the supply of such land in
the local area, which could adversely impact on the economics of food supply.
That said, that the appeal scheme has the potential to result in the loss of BMV
land, albeit limited in extent, falls to be considered as a disbenefit the scheme,
and would be contrary to Policy CS4 of the CS and Paragraph 174b) of the
Framework, which together and among other things seek to protect agricultural
land from development.
Other Considerations
Provision of market and affordable housing
128. The parties agree that the Council33 only has 2.5 years supply of housing land
for the period 2021-2026. However, this is declining, and from the current year
stands at 1.81 years supply (2022-27). This represents a chronic position.
129. In these circumstances, both the main parties afford the proposed provision of
215 units of market housing and 152 affordable housing, very substantial
weight34.
130. The undersupply of housing has persisted for over a decade, resulting in an
overall housing need in the Chilterns Area of 2,068 homes for the period 2016-
2036, or around 104 dwellings each year.
131. For the last 15 years, the median and lower quartile levels of affordability
within the District have been considerably higher in Buckinghamshire than the
wider south-east. In respect of median house prices and lower quartile prices,
the Little Chalfont ward has been significantly higher than for the rest of
30 Hydrock Technical Design Note 3 November 2022
31 Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy SPD 2015
32 CD 1.18 EIA Main chapter
33 The SoCG on housing land identifies that this is appropriately measured across the administrative area of the
former Chiltern District
34 Mr Fannon PoE
Buckinghamshire. A similar pattern is found for median private rents, which are
higher across Buckinghamshire than the rest of the south-east.
132. During this same period, only 13% of housing completions within the Little
Chalfont ward were defined as ‘affordable’, despite the policy requirement of
40% provision during most of this period. Within the last five years, there has
been a 79% shortfall in the provision of affordable housing, compared to the
HEDNA35 2016.
133. To address the extent of historical undersupply, the appellant estimates that
around 180 new affordable dwellings are required each year. This compares to
just 120 affordable dwellings included in extant permissions. These figures
were not contested by the Council during the Inquiry.
134. The appeal scheme is policy compliant in terms of affordable housing provision
and would make a significant contribution to addressing both market and
affordable housing need. The suggested mix of units is in accordance with the
Council’s housing needs.
135. I acknowledge the Council’s position that the most appropriate way to address
these shortfalls would be through a plan-led approach. However, following the
withdrawal of the joint plan, it is unclear when a new plan will be adopted, with
officers indicating that this could be 2026. After this date, an application
would still have to be determined. In contrast, the appellant anticipates that in
the event of this appeal being allowed development could proceed in 202436,
with around 80% of the whole scheme being built out by 2029.
136. The Council has cast doubt on the scheme’s ‘deliverability’, as defined by the
Framework, due to the lack of information before the Inquiry on the Agreement
in respect of the footbridge over the rail lines37. However, the Inquiry was
informed that heads of terms have been agreed with London Transport,38 and
for this reason I am satisfied that it could be delivered in advance of the
completion of the new local plan.
137. Finally, the Council has not advanced an argument to demonstrate that this
level of housing need could be met through the recycling of derelict or urban
land in line with Paragraph 138e) of the Framework.
Custom and Self Build Housing
138. Provision for this form of housing is included in statute39, which requires that
Councils publish local registers of custom house builders who wish to acquire
suitable land on which to build their own home. It requires that Authorities
must give suitable permissions to allow a supply of serviced plots to meet
demand. These requirements have been given greater impetus by the
recommendations of the Bacon Report40 and the Framework.
139. The parties differ on the degree of weight they each ascribe to the provision of
the 15 units proposed, with the Council affording medium weight and the
appellant substantial weight.
35 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2016
36 Mr Kindred XX
37 Mr Kindred EiC
38 As advised by Mr Kindred for the appellant during the Inquiry
39 Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015
40 CD E41
140. The Council has no adopted or interim policy for this form of housing, despite
the imperative accorded to its delivery by statute. I understand the Council’s
reservations on the use of the ‘Build Store plot’ web site, but it accepts that
there is an unmet need of 347 units for the period 2016-2021 and it is agreed
between the parties that the local connection test cannot be applied
retrospectively.
141. Evidence41 demonstrates that cumulatively across the Base Periods, the Council
has continually failed to meet the demand for self-build homes identified in the
Register. These figures were not contested by the Council. In these
circumstances, the provision of 15 units would be a significant benefit, given
the Government’s commitment to this sector and the continued shortfall across
the Council’s area.
142. My attention was drawn to an appeal decision where an Inspector faced with a
similar situation gave substantial weight to this matter42. I too afford this
matter substantial weight in this appeal. Fifteen units would meet local demand
and widen housing choice.
Accommodation for the elderly and retired
143. The appeal scheme includes a 100 bed retirement scheme and a 60 bed care
home. Whilst the Council does not dispute that there is a need for this type of
accommodation, its main concern relates to the excessive amount of
accommodation proposed compared to local need, affordability and the likely
care regime.
144. The appellant’s evidence43 identifies the scale of social care needs for the
period 2020-2035 across the former Chiltern District. This identifies that the
population aged over 65 years is projected to increase by around 18%, with a
marked increase for the cohorts aged 85-89 years and 90+ years of around
45% and 60% respectively. Within this increase, the number of people who
cannot perform at least one domestic task and one self-care task, thereby
requiring some degree of support would increase significantly as well. This
points to the level of need within the former Chiltern District area, which
reflects the priority that this form of accommodation is accorded by national
policy44.
145. In the context of these figures, the application of different modelling systems
to identify demand for accommodation vary. However, a consistent picture
emerges of the likely level of demand, based on the demographic modelling
applied by the appellant. For the period 2020-2035, a projected need for 186
extra care housing units to rent, and 223 units for leasehold, is identified within
the former Chiltern District area.
146. Both parties accept that up to 2025, around 276 units of accommodation are
required45, although the Council indicates that its modelling for the new
Authority area amounts to just 30 additional residential home and 228 nursing
home beds by the year 2037.
41 Mr Moger PoE
42 CD6.5
43 Iain Warner PoE
44 PPG Ref ID:63-001-20190626 identifies the need for this form of specialist accommodation as critical
45 Mr Kindred PoE
147. Whilst I understand the Council’s concerns regarding the lack of detail relating
to the levels of care and its affordability, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme
could make a considerable impact on addressing the under-supply of units
based on the anticipated increase in population alone.
148. I am also mindful, given the chronic undersupply of housing land, that the
provision of additional units of accommodation could release under occupied
housing across the Council area.
149. Even though the appellant has not clarified the ‘care regime’ and the mix
between rent and leasehold, there is an established need for both care and
retirement accommodation in the local area. I afford this aspect of the
proposal substantial weight.
Economic benefits
150. The appellant identifies direct and indirect economic benefits46 which could be
delivered by the appeal scheme. These include 470 construction jobs, resulting
in around £46 million Gross Value Added (GVA) for each year during the
construction period. A further £12 million could be derived from the additional
spend arising from the new residents of the proposed scheme in local shops
and services.
151. Whilst these measures would be related to the construction period, sustained
economic advantages include 118 full time equivalent jobs from employment in
the community hub, the retirement and care homes, and £5.2 million generated
in GVA.
152. I recognise that these benefits are derived from the application of simple
metrics, but I am in no doubt that significant economic advantages would arise
from the delivery of the scheme.
153. Other benefits may arise from the provision of housing, particularly affordable
housing, supporting the local economy by broadening the pool of local labour
who could afford to work locally. This could address employers’ concerns
currently unable to attract local labour because of rising house prices.
154. Whilst the main economic benefits of this scheme would be considerable, they
would be largely temporary, being derived from the construction period and
would not meet the Council’s local employment strategy which seeks high
skilled and high value employment. However, in the context of the recent
downturn in the national economy47, when considered together with the longer
term employment provision on the site and the contribution that future
residents would make to the economy through local expenditure, I afford the
economic benefits moderate weight.
Biodiversity Net Gain
155. The scheme includes a significant BNG of around 20%.
Open Space and Community benefits
46 Ms Collins PoE
47 Ms Collins PoE
156. The appellant identifies that Little Chalfont includes an under provision of
community facilities and open space48. The appeal scheme includes an over-
provision of open space and community benefits, reflecting both quantitative
and qualitative improvements which could help address these shortfalls. In
addition, the provision of pedestrian routes through the site would allow public
access from the station and town centre to the AONB.
157. Whilst I acknowledge the importance of these measures, given the wealth of
accessible countryside around the town, these advantages can only be
accorded limited weight.
Planning Balance and Overall Conclusion
158. The appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development which is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt. To this must be added further harm as a
consequence of the appeal scheme through loss of openness of the Green Belt
and harm to its Purposes included in Paragraph 138b) and c) of the
Framework, limited harm to the setting of the AONB, some, albeit limited harm
in terms of the character and appearance of the area generally, and limited
harm through the loss of BMV land. Paragraph 148 of the Framework confirms
that any harm to the Green Belt is to be given substantial weight.
159. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved other
than in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the potential
harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations. As set out above, there are
substantial benefits arising from the scheme. These include the provision of a
choice of housing which includes market, affordable, retirement and care and
custom/self-build homes at a time when there is pressing need, not least as a
consequence of the Council’s chronic five year housing land supply. These meet
the social objectives of the Framework. The extent of housing need is so large
that it could not be addressed through the reuse of urban land.
160. The economic objectives of the Framework would be achieved by the scheme.
Although much of the economic benefit would be temporary, arising during the
construction period, there would be sustained employment in the services and
facilities on the site, together with increased spend in local shops and services.
In accordance with Paragraph 81 of the Framework, these benefits attract
significant weight.
161. The environmental benefits of the Framework would be achieved through the
large contribution of BNG and, to some extent, through the provision of the
SANG. The extent of the BNG attracts substantial weight. Although provided
as mitigation, the SANG would be available for use by existing local residents
and a limited benefit may accrue in this regard. I also consider that the
provision of other benefits related to open space and community space above
the policy requirements, and footpaths and cycle routes through the site,
attract limited weight.
162. Taken together, these other considerations are considerable and clearly
outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt and other harm, such as to
amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify the development.
48 Mr Kindred PoE table 9.3
163. In the absence of a five year supply of housing land, the most important
policies for determining this appeal are out of date and the so-called tilted
balance, as set out in Framework paragraph 11d)ii), is engaged. In other
words, permission should be granted unless the presumption in favour of
sustainable development can be displaced. That is not to say, however, that
any conflict with relevant policies should be disregarded. That will depend on
their consistency, or otherwise, with the policies in the Framework.
164. The fact that policies are deemed out-of-date does not mean that they carry no
weight. To carry weight policies must be consistent with the Framework, as
explained in Paragraph 219 which, amongst other things, states that the closer
that local policies are to those in the Framework, the greater the weight that
may be given to them. As such it is perfectly possible for policies which are
deemed out-of-date for reason of an inadequate land supply to still carry
significant weight.
165. The most important policies relate to the outstanding matters of Green Belt and
landscape impacts. I share the parties’ views that LP Policy H4 is not applicable
in this instance, given the site’s location beyond the boundaries of the ASC.
166. Policy CS1 sets out a settlement strategy focussing new development within
existing settlements. That accords with the broad principles of sustainable
development which underpins the Framework. However, this strategy is
predicated on a housing allocation dating from 1997 which is no longer
relevant. Given this context, I accord the appeal scheme’s conflict with the
policy only moderate weight.
167. Policy GB2, which reiterates the presumption against inappropriate
development in the Green Belt, was drafted before the adoption of the current
Framework. It is central to the main issue in this appeal. However, it does not
refer to the ‘very special circumstances’ which could allow inappropriate
development in the Green Belt. For this reason, I accord the appeal scheme’s
conflict with the policy only limited weight.
168. I regard LP Policy LSQ1 and Policy CS22 as broadly consistent with Paragraph
176 of the Framework. I find that Policy LSQ1 is, however not directly related
to the issues before me.
169. I find no conflict between the appeal scheme and Policy CS32 as it would make
a significant contribution to GI in this part of the Borough. Policy GC4 is more
restrictive than Paragraph 131 of the Framework on the protection of trees.
Accordingly, it is not entirely consistent with the Framework. As such, I place
only moderate weight on the scheme’s conflict with this policy.
170. Policy GB30 requires development to adhere to the scenic beauty of its wider
context. This is a Green Belt policy but seeks to introduce landscape
considerations. This fudges the issue between a well-established national policy
and landscape considerations. Accordingly, I accord the conflict of the appeal
scheme and this policy limited weight. Policy TW6 seeks to resists the loss of
woodland. It goes beyond Paragraph 131 of the Framework and I accord the
conflict between the appeal scheme and the policy moderate weight.
171. LP Policy GC1 sets out detailed parameters required to achieve good design
and is similar in intent to Policy CS20. I regard these as broadly consistent with
Paragraph 130 of the Framework and accord the appeal scheme’s conflict with
these policies significant weight.
172. In summary, I find no conflict between the scheme and Policies LSQ1, CS32
and H4. I accord only limited weight to the conflict with Policies GB2 and GB30
and CS22 with moderate weight accorded to conflicts with Policies CS1, CS20,
GC1, GC4, and TW6.
Planning Balance
173. The determining issue in this appeal is the conflict between the Green Belt and
housing development. Whilst I accord substantial weight to any harm to the
Green Belt, the site does not strongly meet the Green Belt purposes. Although
there would be spatial harm to openness from the scheme, its visual effects
would be largely contained. The conflict with Policies GB2 and CS1 would be
limited given their inconsistencies with the Framework.
174. The site has a medium landscape value and although there would be a high
magnitude of change on part of the site, this can be balanced against the
retention of its natural character on the remainder including the protection and
enhancement of the belts of Ancient Woodland. The legibility of the dry valley
would not be unduly compromised. Although there is conflict with landscape
policies GC4, CS20, TW6 and GB30 the landscape harm arising from the
scheme would be of a minor/moderate adverse scale.
175. The loss of around 15ha of Grade 3 agricultural land can be balanced against
the prevalence of agricultural land in the local area which would not be affected
by these proposals.
176. Whilst I accord significant weight to the design policies GC1 and CS20, the
degree of harm on the ASC would be limited.
177. Whilst the scheme would conflict with Policy CS22, the harm arising from the
proposed works to Lodge Lane and the widened access into the site lie outside
the AONB and would be limited in extent and localised. These works would not
undermine its setting and scenic beauty.
178. Set against these limited harms to both the Green Belt and landscape, the
scheme would deliver a choice of housing addressing a chronic and
deteriorating undersupply. These are substantial benefits which in themselves
clearly outweigh the substantial harm arising from its location in the Green
Belt.
179. The Council advances a case against the scheme that the permanence of the
Green Belt should be protected from death by a ‘thousand cuts’. This argument
requires balance against the absence of any Green Belt review, despite the
Council’s commitment included in its adopted local plan. This matter has been
compounded by the withdrawn joint local plan49. Whilst the emerging plan is a
new opportunity to address this matter its adoption is several years away in
contrast to the delivery timescale of this scheme.
Conclusions
180. The appeal scheme would make a substantial contribution to addressing the
Authority’s chronic under supply of housing land in a location which allows
49 IDX17
access to services by walking and cycling. Other considerations, for example,
its economic and environmental benefits are important matters in support of
the scheme.
181. When considered overall, whilst I accord substantial weight to the harm arising
to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm, this is clearly
outweighed by the very special circumstances of this scheme.
182. Overall, I conclude that the benefits of the appeal scheme would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified when assessed against the
policies of the Development Plan, when taken as a whole. As such the proposed
development benefits from the Framework’s presumption in favour of
sustainable development.
183. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted.
184. I recognise that this outcome will be disappointing to those opposing the
development. However, the views of local people, very important though they
are, must be balanced against other considerations, including national and local
planning policy. In coming to my conclusions on the various issues that have
been raised, I have taken full and careful account of all the representations
that have been made, which I have balanced against the provisions of the
development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and other material
considerations. On balance though, the evidence in this case leads me to the
view that the appeal should succeed.
Conditions
185. I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the related discussion at
the Inquiry and the advice in both the Framework and the Government’s
Planning Practice Guidance. The conditions and wording set out in the schedule
at Annex D below reflect that discussion, although I have amended a number
to make them more concise, precise and enforceable. In a number of
instances, I have not included the suggested list of overly prescriptive bullets
on the basis that it would be a matter for the local planning authority, in the
first instance, to come to a view as whether the submitted details were
sufficient to achieve the stated reason for the condition. The numbers referred
to below relate to the corresponding condition in the schedule.
186. In addition to the standard conditions relating to outline schemes (1-3), it is
necessary, in order to provide certainty, to identify the plans to which the
decision relates, but only insofar as they relate to the matter of access. (4).
The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, based on
certain parameters. The Environmental Statement, and those parameters,
informed the evidence to the Inquiry. In order to ensure that the development
would not give rise to environmental or other impacts any greater than those
already assessed within the Environmental Statement and other evidence,
conditions are necessary to secure compliance with those parameters/quantum
of development. (5-9).
187. Conditions 10-32 are necessarily worded as either pre-reserved matters, or
pre-commencement/reserved matters stage conditions, as a later trigger for
their submission and/or implementation would limit their effectiveness or the
scope of measures which could be used to protect legitimate interests.
188. The scale of the development scheme requires the submission of a phasing
plan to ensure that key aspects of the scheme are carried out in a logical and
timely manner in order to secure delivery of planned outputs and to minimise
adverse effects on local residents and infrastructure. (10) Similarly a
Masterplan and Design Code is required with the aim of securing high quality
development, pursuant to Local Plan Policy GC1 and Core Strategy Policies CS4
and CS20. (11) A strategic landscaping plan is also required in order to ensure
a strategic and comprehensive approach to the landscaping of the site, in
accordance with Local Plan Policies GC1, GC4 and NC1 and Core Strategy
Policies CS4, CS20, CS24 and CS32. (12)
189. Given the potential archaeological interest of the site, as identified in the
appellant’s Historic Environment Assessment, further on-site evaluation is
required, pursuant to Local Plan Policy AS2 and Core Strategy Policy CS4. (13)
190. The following conditions are necessary in the interest of highway safety,
pursuant to Local Plan Policies TR2 and TR3 and Core Strategy Policies CS4,
CS25 and CS26: (14, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38)
191. In line with policy objectives to promote more sustainable modes of travel
(Local Plan Policies TR2 and TR3 and Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS25 and
CS26) and in the interest of pedestrian and cyclist safety, it is necessary to
secure the intended footway and cycleway links. (15)
192. Details of refuse storage and recycling facilities are necessary in the interest of
residential amenity, in accordance with Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS25 and
CS26. (17)
193. Pursuant to Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS5, CS26 and CS31, a detailed
Energy and Sustainability Strategy for the development is required in order to
reduce domestic energy consumption and CO2 emissions. (18) The same
policies justify a condition relating to specified water efficiency measures. (19)
194. It is necessary to ensure the provision of a range of housing that meets
different accessibility needs in accordance with the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy CS20. (20)
195. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) is necessary in order to
minimise the impacts of construction on local residents, local businesses and
those travelling through the area, and to protect the environment, pursuant to
Local Plan Policy GC7 and Core Strategy Policy CS4. I have incorporated
suggested conditions relating to the management of construction traffic,
construction accesses and construction waste into the CEMP requirements.
Given the dark sky location of the site, I have added a requirement for site
lighting details during construction. (21)
196. A Construction Ecological Management Plan is necessary to minimise
environmental impacts during the construction period, in accordance with Core
Strategy Policies CS4 and CS24. (22)
197. Conditions are required to safeguard ecological and arboricultural interests,
increase biodiversity and in the interests of visual amenity, pursuant to Local
Plan Policies GC4, NC1 and TW6 and Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS20, CS24
and CS32. (23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 40, 43)
198. Given the proximity of the eastern part of the site to the rail line, surveys are
required in relation to both noise and vibration in order to assess any
mitigation requirements that might be necessary to provide acceptable living
conditions for future occupiers. (24)
199. In accordance with Local Plan Policy GC9, conditions are necessary to ensure
that any site contamination, or the potential for such, is detected and
remediated accordingly and that any risks from contamination are properly
dealt with to protect the health of future occupiers and to prevent pollution of
the environment. (26, 33, 34)
200. In accordance with Local Plan Policy CS4, details of a sustainable surface water
drainage scheme are required, together with details for ongoing management
which are essential to ensure that the scheme continues to perform as
intended, in order to avoid pollution and to prevent increased risk from
flooding. (27)
201. The scheme includes an area of land to be safeguarded for playing pitches. It
is necessary to ensure that the land is properly drained so that it is suitable for
the intended purpose. (30)
202. In order to ensure necessary connectivity with Little Chalfont in the interest of
accessibility and sustainability, it is necessary to prevent occupation of
development within the eastern part of the site until the proposed
pedestrian/cycle bridge over the railway line has been completed and made
available for use. (39). I have combined and simplified the two suggested
conditions in this regard.
203. The identified benefits of the scheme include the provision of retirement homes
and a care home to meet an identified local need. That consideration
contributed to the very special circumstances in this case, which justify
development in the Green Belt. In order to ensure that the identified need is
met, it is necessary to ensure that the accommodation is not used for other
purposes. (41)
204. It is also necessary to ensure that the local centre is only used for purposes
falling within specific use classes in the interests of both highway safety and in
terms of creating a sustainable community. (42)
205. In the interest of highway safety, it is necessary to ensure that, once provided,
the visibility splays at the junction of the site accesses with the existing
highway network are kept clear of obstruction. (44)
206. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the submission of a
landscaping scheme, since landscaping is one the reserved matters and any
scheme would, by virtue of one of the other conditions, need to comply with a
strategic landscape plan to be submitted. Neither have I imposed the condition
requiring electric vehicle parking spaces, since it would duplicate the provisions
of Section S of the Building Regulations.
Stephen Wilkinson
INSPECTOR
Annex A
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr S. Bird, King’s Counsel for Instructed by Ms Katherine Stubbs, Solicitor to
the Authority Buckinghamshire Council
He called
Ms N. Huijer BA, Dip LA, Landscape Architect
CMLI
Mr J. Fannon MRUP, Planning Consultant
MSc, MRTPI
Ms K. Stubbs Solicitor to the Council
Mr C Duncan Highways
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr S. White, King’s Counsel for Instructed by Ms Alison Tero of CBRE
the appellant, and Mr M Fraser,
Counsel for the appellant
He called
Mr A Kindred MSc BA Director CBRE
(Hons)MRTPI
Ms R Taylor BA (Hons) Partner, JTP
MSc, Dip Arch, RIBA
Mr M D Chard BA(Hons), Landscape Director, Barton Wilmore now Stantec
Dip (Hons), MAUD, CMLI
James Stacey BA Managing Director, Tetlow King
(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI
Iain Warner BSc (Hons) Director, Tetlow King
DipTP
Andy Moger BA(Hons) Director, Tetlow King
MA MRPTI
Ms M Collins BA (Hons) Director, Hatch Regeneris
Ms S Herbert Senior Associate, Town Legal
Executive Director, CBRE – Planning
Ms A Tero BA(Hons) MA
Mr P Bell BEng (Hons)
Managing Director, Motion – Highways
MCIT, MILT, MCIHT
Jacob Hepworth Bell BSc Director Ecology Solutions
(Hons), MIEnvSc,
MCIEEM
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr C Ingram Parish Councillor Speaking for Little Chalfont Parish Council and
the Community Association
Mr B Gallagher Parish Councillor Speaking for Little Chalfont Parish Council and
the Community Association
Mr M Parker Resident
Mr K Haedjer Resident
Annex B
Documents handed up during the Inquiry
Document Title
Document
Reference
IDX – Inquiry Documents
IDX1 Opening Statement (Appellant)
IDX2 Opening Statement (Council)
IDX3 Parish Council and Resident Association Verbal Presentation –
Interested Party
IDX4 Mr Haider Verbal Presentation – Interested Parties
IDX4.1 Mr Haider Verbal Presentation – Interested Parties (Appeal Decision
Land East of Bredon Road, Mitton).
IDX5 Mr Bell Written Response to Mr Haider (Interested Party)
IDX6 Minor Parameter Plan Changes (Annotated Version)
IDX7 Billericay Appeal Decision (9 December 2022)
IDX8 Ms Huijer (Council) Response to Waterman Tree Note (CD7.22)
IDX9 Barton Willmore (Appellant) Response to Ms Huijer Note
IDX10 Mr Harris (Appellant) Response to Ms Huijer
IDX11 Mr Haider Response to Mr Bell (12.12.2022)
IDX12 Roundtable on Needs Agenda
IDX13 Additional note from Little Chalfont Parish Council and Community
Association on highway matters, dated 12 December
IDX14 Contour Overlay Plan
IDX15 Ms Taylor PowerPoint Presentation dated 14 December
IDX16 Inspector’s Site Visit Route and Itinerary
IDX17 Letter on the Examination of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local
Plan
dated 7 May 2020
IDX18 Mr Parker (Interested Party) email on Highways dated 11 December
IDX19 Mr Parker (Interested Party) email on withdrawn site allocation SP
BP6 dated 13 December
IDX20 GLVIA Extract
IDX21 Mr Bell response to Mr Haider dated 14 December
IDX22 Mr Bell response to Little Chalfont Parish Council and Community
Association on Highways Matters dated 15 December
IDX23 Figure LT1C Overlay Plan dated 16 December
IDX24 Agreed technical note on the Indicative Phasing Plan and
Environmental Impact Assessment dated 15 December (Waterman)
(Appellant)
IDX25 Agreed Green Belt note dated 19 December
IDX26 S106 proposal from Parish Council and LCCA dated 15 December
IDX27 GLVIA extract pages 30 – 40
IDX28 Mr Bell response to LC PC and LCCA Roughwood Lane note dated 20
December
IDX29 Roughwood Lane Note by LC PC and LCCA dated 19 December
IDX30 Beaconsfield Appeal decision dated 20 December
IDX31 Cllr Ingham email on Church Grove dated 18 December
IDX32 Mr Bell response to Cllr Ingham email on Church Grove dated 19
December
IDX33 Mr Chard note dated 20 December
IDX34 Brown v Ealing LBC dated 23 March 2018
IDX35 Peel Investments North Ltd [2021] P.T.S.R. 298
IDX36 Council Closing Statement
IDX37 Appellant Closing Statement
Documents presented after the Inquiry closed
Completed S106 Agreement, dated 30 December 2022
Annex C
Schedule of Conditions
RESERVED MATTERS
1. Details of appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called
the Reserved Matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before any development takes place and the
development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
2. Applications for the approval of all the Reserved Matters shall be made to
the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the
date of this permission.
3. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years
from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be
approved.
PLANS
4. Unless required otherwise by any of the conditions below, development
shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following
approved plans, but only insofar as they relate to access:
Burtons Lane Access Drawing 140207-34 Rev C
Lodge Lane Access Drawing 140207-40 Rev A
Highways Plan – Lodge Lane 140207-41
Highways Plan – Lodge Lane 140207-42
DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS/QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT
5. Applications for the approval of the Reserved Matters shall accord with the
following approved plans:
Parameter Plan: Land Use and Drawing 00973E_PP01 Rev P2
Green Infrastructure
Parameter Plan: Building Heights Drawing 00973E_PP02 Rev P2
Parameter Plan: Access and Drawing 00973E_PP03 Rev P2
Movement
Parameter Plan: Demolition Drawing 00973E_SO3 Rev P1
Development Parcels Drawing 140207-61
6. The number of Use Class C3 dwellings to be constructed on the site shall
not exceed 380.
7. The number of retirement homes (Use Class C2) hereby permitted shall
not exceed 100 units of accommodation.
8. The care home (Use Class C2) hereby permitted shall not exceed 60 bed
spaces.
9. The local centre hereby permitted shall not permitted shall not exceed a
gross external floorspace of 1,000sqm and shall include no more than
250sqm (gross external area) of retail floorspace as defined by Class E(a)
of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)
(or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order).
PRE-RESERVED MATTERS
Phasing
10.Prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, and
notwithstanding the details shown on Drawing Number 00973E_SO3 Rev
P2), an updated phasing plan shall be submitted to the local planning
authority identifying the phasing for the construction of the development
across the whole site. No development shall commence until the local
planning authority has approved in writing the phasing plan and the
development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the
approved phasing plan. The phasing plan may be updated or amended
through time to time with the approval in writing of the local planning
authority.
Masterplan and Design Code
11.Prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, and
notwithstanding the submitted details, a detailed masterplan and design
code covering the whole of the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, any Reserved Matters
application pursuant to Condition 1 for any phase of development shall
comply with the principles established by the approved masterplan and
design code.
Strategic Landscaping
12.Prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, a Strategic
Landscaping Plan covering the whole of the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategic
Landscaping Plan shall be in accordance with the submitted SANG and
Biodiversity Management Plan (reference 10667M.SBMP.vf October 2022)
and Biodiversity Net Gain report (reference10677M.BNGReport.vf October
2022) demonstrating that a minimum of 20% Biodiversity Net Gain can be
achieved across the site. Thereafter, any Reserved Matters application for
any phase of development shall comply with the principles established by
the approved Strategic Landscaping Plan.
Archaeological Evaluation
13.Prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, an
archaeological evaluation of the site shall have been undertaken in the
form of trial trenching in accordance with a written scheme of investigation
which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Where significant archaeological remains are
confirmed, no Reserved Matters applications shall be submitted until an
appropriate methodology for their preservation in situ has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
RESERVED MATTERS STAGE
Estate Roads
14. The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 for each phase, shall
demonstrate the development being served by means of adoptable estate
roads. No dwelling or unit hereby permitted shall be occupied until the
estate roads which provide access to it from the existing highway have
been laid out and constructed in accordance with details have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Walking/Cycling Route Phasing
15. The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include an
internal walking/cycling route phasing scheme. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, which shall include:
a) links from the proposed pedestrian and cycle access from
Oakington Avenue via the pedestrian and cycle bridge;
b) new pedestrian and cycle access onto Burtons Lane; and
c) a public right of way connection at the eastern side of the site onto
Lodge Lane.
Parking/Garaging etc
16.The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 for each phase shall
include a scheme for vehicle parking, garaging, and manoeuvring; cycle
parking; and, where appropriate, space for loading/unloading and servicing
for the local centre, in accordance with Buckinghamshire Council’s
Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance policy document.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and made available for use prior to occupation of the development that it
would serve. Once provided, those areas / facilities shall not thereafter be
used for any other purpose.
Refuse Storage
17.The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 for each phase shall
include a scheme for refuse storage and recycling facilities. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and made
available for use prior to occupation or first use of the development that it
would serve. Once provided, the facilities shall be retained thereafter.
Energy and Sustainability
18.The details to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 for each phase shall be
accompanied by a detailed Energy and Sustainability Strategy for the
relevant phase of the development. The Strategy shall include measures
to reduce carbon emissions through the use of low-carbon and/or
renewable technologies; other measures to ensure the implementation of
sustainable design and construction principles; and details to demonstrate
that adequately sized grid connections can be provided to meet the energy
demand of the development. Development shall be carried out fully in
accordance with the approved details for the relevant phase and the low-
carbon/renewable technology shall be retained thereafter.
19.The dwellings hereby permitted shall be designed and constructed to meet
a water efficiency standard of no more than 100 litres per person per day
in accordance with Table 5.1 of the Sustainability and Energy Statement
(16 November 2021).
Accessible/Adaptable Accommodation
20.A minimum of 10% of the market residential units in any phase shall be
designed to provide accessible and adaptable accommodation that meets
the requirements of M4(2) of Part M of Schedule 1 of the Building
Regulations 2010 (including any statutory replacement or amendment)
and 1% of the market residential units in any phase shall be designed to
meet the requirements of M4(3) of Part M of the same Schedule. Once
provided, these units shall be retained as such thereafter.
PRE-COMMENCEMENT
Construction Management
21.No development shall commence on any phase until a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP at all times. The CEMP
shall include, but is not limited to:
a) site management arrangements, including on-site storage of
materials, plant and machinery; temporary offices, contractors
compounds and other facilities; on-site parking and turning provision
for site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles, including use of a
banksman; and provision for the loading/unloading of plant and
materials within the site;
b)site specific measures to control and monitor impacts arising in
relation to noise and vibration (including working hours and details of
all piling and power floating activities as appropriate), and dust and
fumes;
b) arrangements by which the developer shall maintain communication
with local stakeholders in the vicinity of the site, and by which the
developer shall monitor and document compliance with the measures
set out in the CEMP;
c) a construction waste management plan that identifies the main
waste materials expected to be generated by the development during
demolition and construction, including vegetation, together with
measures for dealing with such materials so as to minimise waste and
to maximise re-use and recycling;
d) location of access/exit points on the site for construction traffic;
e) construction and delivery hours;
f) arrangements for any site lighting, including security lighting, its
location and hours of operation.
22.No development shall commence on any phase until a Construction
Ecological Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out
in strict accordance with the approved Construction Ecological
Management Plan. The Construction Ecological Management Plan shall
include, but is not restricted to:
a) risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
b) identification of "biodiversity protection zones" including off-site
receptors;
c) practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce ecological impacts during construction
(may be provided as a set of method statements);
d) the location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features;
e) the times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
f) responsible persons and lines of communication;
g) the role and responsibilities on site of an Ecological Clerk of Works,
or similarly competent person;
h) use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and
i) measures for removal of invasive species within the site.
Levels
23.Prior to commencement of development in any phase, details of existing
and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels, and cross-sections
within the site, including any retaining walls, taken up to the site
boundaries, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
Noise and vibration
24.No development shall commence within the Eastern Parcel (as defined on
drawing number 140207-61) until details of an assessment of the effects
of noise and vibration on the proposed residential accommodation within
that Parcel arising from the adjacent railway line and employment uses,
together with any identified measures necessary to ensure, among other
things, that indoor ambient noise levels meet the recommendations in
Table 4 of BS 8233:2014, have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Tree Protection
25.No development within any phase shall commence until a full Arboricultural
Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan for that phase has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
which shall detail all work within the root protection areas of the retained
trees within and around the site in relation to that phase. This statement
shall also include details of protection measures for the trees during the
development, and information about any excavation work, any changes in
existing ground levels and any changes in surface treatments within the
root protection areas of the trees, including plans and cross-sections where
necessary. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
Contamination
26.No development shall commence within any phase until a scheme to deal
with the risks associated with contamination of that part of the site has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme,
which shall include:
i) a site investigation, based on the Preliminary Risk Assessment
prepared by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Ltd (Report ref.
WIE15569-110-1-2-2-PRA) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including
those off site;
ii) the results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment
referred to in i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and
Remediation Strategy, giving full details of the remediation measures
required and how they are to be undertaken; and
iii) a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected
in order to demonstrate that the works set out in ii) are complete and
identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant
linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any
changes to these components require the express written consent of
the local planning authority.
Sustainable Drainage
27.No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for
the site, based on the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage
Strategy (LCF-HYD-XX-XX-RP-D-5001 Issue P05, 26th November 2021,
Hydrock) and Technical Design Note (08877-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-7000, 3rd
November 2022, Hydrock), and including a Surface Water Drainage
Phasing Plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved details and no accommodation in a surface water drainage
phase shall be occupied until all the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
and drainage components that would serve it have been implemented in
full. The surface water drainage scheme shall include:
A. details of basins to be located outside of areas of surface water flood
risk as shown on drawing 08877-HYD-XX-XX-DR-FR-0007 P05 (Post-
Development Maximum Surface Water Flood Depths – 1 in 100 year
event plus + 40% Climate Change (03/11/2022, Hydrock));
B. infiltration rate testing in accordance with BRE365, in the location of
basins 2, 3 and 4 to the proposed effective depth of the infiltration
feature;
C. SuDS components as shown in LCF-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-2200 P08
Drainage Strategy for Illustrative Masterplan Overview Plan
(03/11/2022, Hydrock); and
D. full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components in form
of cross-sectional drawings and including:
i) cover and invert levels of components;
ii) water levels for the 50% annual exceedance probability (AEP),
3.3% AEP and 1% AEP events, plus climate change events;
iii) details of lining materials where relevant;
iv) detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients and pipe
sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS
components;
v) calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system
can contain up to the 3.3% AEP storm event without flooding.
Any onsite flooding between the 3.3% AEP and the 1% AEP
event plus climate change should be safely contained on site.;
vi) water quality assessment demonstrating that the total
pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution
hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS
components; and
vii) details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of
system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such
flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing
flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites.
E) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development, which shall include the arrangements for adoption by
any public body or statutory undertaker or management company and
any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme
throughout its lifetime.
Ecology and Biodiversity
28.Notwithstanding details already submitted, no development shall
commence within the Eastern Parcel (as defined on Drawing 140207-61)
until the results of an updated report on bat activity at Lodge Lane,
following a survey undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation
Trust (BCT) publication Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good
Practice Guidelines, together with details of any necessary mitigation
measures, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
any necessary mitigation measures.
29.No development within any phase shall commence until a long-term
Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for that phase has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The LEMPs shall be in accordance with the submitted SANG and
Biodiversity Management Plan (reference 10667M.SBMP.vf October 2022),
the Biodiversity Net Gain report (reference10677M.BNGReport.vf October
2022) and the Strategic Landscaping Plan referred to in Condition 12.
Safeguarded land
30.No development shall commence until a detailed assessment of the ground
conditions (including drainage and topography) of the safeguarded land for
educational use (playing pitches) as shown on the approved Land Use and
Green Infrastructure and Parameter Plan (drawing number 00973E_PP01
Rev P2), together with a scheme to address any related constraints and a
timetable for implementation of such a scheme, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall
thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Biodiversity Net Gain
31.No development shall take place within any phase (including demolition,
ground works and vegetation clearance) until a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan
(BNG Plan) demonstrating how BNG will be achieved for that phase has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The BNG Plan shall accord with the requirements of Condition 12 and shall
include, but is not limited to, the following:
a) information about the steps taken, or to be taken, to minimise the
adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the on-site
habitat;
b) the post-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat; and
c) any biodiversity credits purchased for the development.
32.No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works and
vegetation clearance) until a Biodiversity Monitoring Strategy has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority, the
purpose of which shall be to ensure that the proposed ecological
avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures for the
site are successfully delivered and managed. The Strategy, which shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details, shall include:
a) the aims and objectives of monitoring to match the stated purpose;
b) identification of adequate baseline conditions prior to the start of
development;
c) appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against
which the effectiveness of the various conservation measures being
monitored can be judged;
d) methods for data gathering and analysis;
e) locations for monitoring;
f) timing and duration of monitoring;
g) responsible persons and lines of communication; and
h) arrangements for review, and where appropriate, publication of
results and outcomes.
Reports describing the results of the monitoring pursuant to Condition
31, shall be submitted to the local planning authority at intervals
identified in the Biodiversity Monitoring Strategy. The reports shall also
set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims
and objectives are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial
action will be identified, agreed with the local planning authority, and
then implemented. The monitoring strategy will be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
PRE-OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
Contamination
33.No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought
into use until a Verification Report that demonstrates completion of the
works set out in the Remediation Strategy pursuant to Condition 26, and
the effectiveness of any remediation carried out, together with any
necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any
waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall be implemented
in accordance with the approved details.
34.In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified, it must be
reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and, where
remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be prepared, which
is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Highways
35.No development within the Western Parcel (as defined on drawing number
140207-61) shall be occupied until:
a) the new vehicular access to Burtons Lane has been sited and laid out
in accordance with the approved drawings (140207-34 Rev C) and
the Buckinghamshire Council Guidance note “Commercial Vehicular
Access within the Public Highway”;
b) the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings (140207-34 Rev
C) have been provided on both sides of the vehicle access on Burtons
Lane; and
c) the pedestrian and cycleway improvements on Burtons Lane to the
junction with the A404 including realignment works (as shown in
drawings 140207-57 Rev B, and 140207-58 Rev B) have been laid
out and constructed in accordance with details which shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
36.No development within the Eastern Parcel of the site defined on drawing
number 140207-61 shall be occupied until:
a) the altered vehicular access to Lodge Lane has been sited and laid
out in accordance with the approved drawings (140207-40 Rev A)
and the Buckinghamshire Council Guidance note “Commercial
Vehicular Access within the Public Highway”; and
b) visibility splays shown on the approved drawings (140207-40 Rev A)
have been provided on both sides of the vehicle access on Lodge Lane.
37.No development within the Eastern Parcel of the site as defined on drawing
number 140207-61 shall be occupied until the following highway
improvements to Oakington Avenue/A404 (as shown on Drawing 140207-
37 Rev F) have been laid out and constructed in accordance with details
which shall been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority showing:
a) realignment of the Oakington Avenue/A404 junction including
pedestrian footway improvements between the proposed pedestrian
and cycle bridge over the railway and Chalfont and Latimer railway
station;
b) upgrade of existing zebra crossing to a Toucan crossing; and
c) two new bus stops on the A404.
38.No development on any part of the site shall be occupied until the Cokes
Lane A404 highway improvement scheme has been delivered in general
accordance with drawing 140207-30 Rev B.
39.No part of the development within the Eastern Parcel of the site (as shown
on drawing number 140207-61) shall be occupied until the pedestrian and
cycle bridge over the railway line has been provided and made available
for use by pedestrians and cyclists for the lifetime of the development
hereby permitted, together with the associated pedestrian and cycle
connections and access onto Oakington Avenue (as shown on 140207-49).
Lighting
40.No part of any phase shall be brought into use until a lighting design
strategy for any buildings, features and areas to be lit within the relevant
phase, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. No external lighting shall be installed other than in
accordance with the approved strategy. The strategy shall:
a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive
for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their
breeding sites and resting places, or along important routes used to
access key areas of their territory, including foraging;
b) show how, when and where external lighting will be installed
(through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and
technical specifications); and
c) ensure that lighting in ecologically sensitive locations has a colour
temperature of no more than 2700 Kelvin.
POST- OCCUPANCY/ONGOING CONDITIONS
Future Use
41.The retirement homes and care home hereby permitted shall be used for
C2 purposes only and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in
Class C of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in
any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or
without modification).
42.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any
subsequent re-enactment thereof) the local centre hereby permitted shall
only be used for purposes falling within the following Classes of the Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and for no
other purpose:
• Classes E(a) Display or retail sale of goods, other than hot food;
• E(b) Food and drink which is mostly consumed on the premises;
• E(e) Medical services not attached to the residence of the practitioner;
and
• F2(b) Halls or meeting places for the principal use of the local
community.
Trees
43.With the exception of any pruning, tree surgery or felling specifically
shown in the approved tree report (November 2021, Document Ref -
WIE15569-107-R-2-2-1-AIA and November 2022, WIE15569-
107.BN.1.1.2), or as shown on any landscaping scheme or Landscape and
Ecology Management Plan, no tree, shrub or hedge shall be pruned, felled
or removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority. If during construction of the development, or within a period of
five years of its completion, any tree, shrub, hedge dies or becomes
damaged, destroyed, diseased or dangerous, it shall be replaced during
the following planting season by another healthy, tree, shrub or hedge as
the case may be of a similar size and species, unless otherwise approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any such
replacement planting shall be maintained or further replaced as necessary
for five years after replacement, unless otherwise approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
Visibility Splays
44.Once provided pursuant to Conditions 35 and 36, the area contained within
the visibility splays at the junction of the site accesses with the highway
network shall thereafter be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in
height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.
----------------------------------End of Schedule--------------------------------------
Annex D
Core Document List
Those identified in bold were revised following the Council’s decision
.CD1 Site Location Plan 00973E S01
CD.1.1 Site Location Plan 00973E S01
CD1.2 Indicative Density Plan 00973E S02
CD1.2R Indicative Density Plan 00973E S02 P2
CD1.3 Indicative Phasing Plan 00973E S03
CD1.3R Indicative Phasing Plan 00973E S03 P2
CD1.4 Block Plan 00973E S04
CD1.5 Land Use and Green 00973E PP01
Infrastructure Parameter
Plan
CD1.5R Land Use and Green 00973E PP01 P2
Infrastructure
Parameter Plan
CD1.6 Heights Parameter Plan 00973E PP02
CD1.6R Building Heights Parameter 00973E PP02 P2
Plan
CD1.7 Access and Movement Parameter 00973E PP03
Plan
CD1.7R Access and Movement 00973E PP03 P2
Parameter Plan
206.1 CD1.8 206.2 Demolition Parameter Plan 00973E PP04
CD1.9 Illustrative Masterplan 00973E MP01
CD1.9R Illustrative Masterplan 00973E MP01 P2
CD1.10 Ecology and Trees Checklist
CD1.11 206.3 Design and Access
Statement
CD1.12 Statement of Community
Involvement
CD1.13 Affordable Housing Form
CD1.14 Affordable Housing Need
Assessment
CD1.15 Flood Risk Assessment + SUDS
Strategy
CD1.16 Hydraulic Model Assessment
CD1.17 Utilities Assessment
CD1.18 EIA
CD1.18.1 Non-Technical Summary
CD1.18.2 Environment Statement WIE15569-111-
Addendum (ES Addendum) R.1.1.1.ES
Addendum
CD1.18.3 Preliminary Risk Assessment (ES WIE15569-110-1-
Addendum) 3-1-PRA
CD1.18.4 ES Volume 2 Figures
CD1.18.5 206.4 ES Volume 3 Appendices
CD1.19 Built Heritage Statement WIE15569-102-R-
1-2-4-HEDBA
CD1.20 Land Contamination Assessment 206.5 WIE15569-
110-1-2-2-
PRA
CD1.21 Economic Benefits Statement 206.6
CD1.22 Tree Survey and Arboriculture WIE15569-
Impact Assessment 107-R-2-2-1-
AIA
CD1.22.A Tree Survey and WIE15569-107-R-
Arboriculture Impact 2-3-1-AIA
Assessment (ES
Addendum)
CD1.23 Transport Assessment and
Drawings
CD1.24 Travel Plan
CD1.24R Travel Plan October 2022
CD1.25 Draft Construction Management
Plan
CD1.26 206.7 Planning Statement
CD1.27 Energy and Sustainability
Statement
CD1.28 Waste and Recycling Strategy
CD1.29 Geophysical Survey
CD1.30 Lodge Lane Landscape Strategy
CD1.31 Co-Ordinated Drainage Drawing
CD1.32 Covering Letter
CD1.33 Exceedance Flow Rates
CD1.34 Illustrative Cut and Fill
CD1.35 Illustrative Drainage Strategy
CD1.36 SANG Management Plan October 2022
(140207-40A)
CD1.37 Lodge Lane Access
(140207-34C)
CD1.38 Burton Lane Access
(14207-37F)
CD1.39 Oakington Avenue
(140207-57B)
CD1.40 Burtons Lane Cycleway
(140207-58B)
CD1.41 Burtons Lane Cycleway
Ecology Solutions – November 2022,
CD1.42
Information for Habitats 10677M.HRA.vf
Regulation Assessment
Air Quality Technical Note December 2022
CD1.43
WIE15569-108-
TN-1-1-3-AQ
Supplementary Local 18th November
CD1.44
Junction Modelling Work 2022
Flood Risk Technical Design 3rd November
CD1.45
Note 2022
EIA Statement of Conformity
CD1.46
Off-Site Highways Plans
CD1.47
Development Parcels 2nd November
CD1.48
2022
CD2 Planning Application Determination/Decision Documents
CD2.1 Decision Notice (25 April 2022)
CD2.2 Officer Report to Planning Committee 21 April 2022
CD2.3 Update to officer Report (dated 20 April 2022)
Officer Report Appendix A – Consultation responses
CD2.4
and Representations
Officer Report Appendix A Part 2 – Statutory
CD2.5
Responses
CD2.6 Officer Report Appendix B – Site Location Plan
Officer Report Appendix C – HRA Appropriate
CD2.7
Assessment
CD2.8 Officer Report Appendix D – Submitted Drawings.
CD2.9 CBRE Response to Officer Report
CD3 – Appeal Documents
CD3.1 Appellant Statement of Case
CD3.2 Draft Statement of Common Ground
CD3.3 Council’s Statement of Case
CD3.4 Third Party Representations
CD3.4.1 Third Party Rep – Buckinghamshire NHS ICB
Third Party Rep – Little Chalfont Parish Council and
CD3.4.2
Community Association
CD3.4.3 Third Party Rep – GM Wood
CD3.4.4 Third Party Rep – Kamran Haider
CD3.4.5 Third Party Rep – Kirsty Buhler
CD3.4.6 Third Party Rep – Kris Murali
CD3.4.7 Third Party Rep – BPA
CD3.4.8 Third Party Rep - M Buhler
CD3.4.9 Third Party Rep - Natural England
CD3.4.10 Third Party Rep – G Nolan
CD3.4.11 Third Party Rep – R Murphy
CD3.4.12 Third Party Rep - S Yershov
CD3.4.13 Third Party Rep - Chiltern Conservation Board
CD3.4.14 Third Party Rep – V Raman
CD4 –The Local Plan, Supplementary Planning and other Local Guidance and
Monitoring Documents
CD4.1 Chiltern District Local Plan
CD4.2 Core Strategy for Chiltern District
CD4.3 Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan
CD4.4 Chiltern and South Bucks 5YHLS Update Statement
2022
CD4.5 Buckinghamshire Authority Monitoring Report 2020 -
2021
Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic
CD4.6
Development Needs Assessment Update (2016)
CD4.7 Joint Chiltern & South Bucks Area 2019/20 Annual
Monitoring Report
CD4.8 Chiltern Affordable Housing SPD (2012)
CD4.9 First Homes Interim Position Statement (2022)
CD4.10 Buckinghamshire Homelessness and Rough Sleeping
Strategy 2022 to 2025
CD4.11 Buckinghamshire Council Corporate Plan 2020 to
2025, refreshed February 2022
CD4.12 Bucks Home Choice Allocation Policy, May 2014
CD4.13 Biodiversity Net Gain SPD (2022)
CD4.14 Buckinghamshire Self-Build and Custom Build End of
Year Report 2020-2021
CD4.15 Local Transport Plan 4 2016 - 2036
CD4.16 Chiltern District Landscape Character Assessment
(Land Use Consultants) October 2011
CD5 – National Planning Policy/Guidance/Evidence Base
CD5.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2021
CD5.2 National Planning Practice Guidance 2021
CD5.3 National Design Guide 2021
CD5.4 Guidance Notes for Design Codes
CD5.5 Building for Healthy Life – Homes England 2020
CD5.6 Landscape Institute Technical Advice Note (TGN 02-
21)
‘Assessing Landscape Value Outside National
Designations’
CD5.7 Institute of Lighting Professionals, Guidance Note
(02/21)
‘The Reduction of Obtrusive Light’
CD5.8 Department for Levelling Up Housing and
Communities Right to Build Registers Monitoring
Data for Chiltern
CD5.9
CD5.10 BVTLEP Local Industrial Strategy
CD5.11 Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP (BTVLEP)
Strategic Economic Plan 2016-2031
CD5.12 WPI Strategy for Homes for Later Living (February
2021)
CD5.13 Homes and Communities Agency (2015), ‘Calculating
Cost Per Job – Best Practice Note. Third Edition’
CD5.14 CAG Consultants (CAG) London Employment Sites
Database
CD5.15 Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines
(2016)
CD5.16 HGBI Reptile Best Practice
CD5.17 Natural England Guidance Note on Badgers and
Disturbance
CD5.18 English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004)
CD5.19 DEFRA Metric User Guidance and Technical
Supplement
CD5.20 DEFRA Policy Paper – ancient and native woodland
and trees policy in England (2022)
CD5.21 “Bleak Houses: Tackling the Crisis of Family
Homelessness in England”; Children’s Commissioner,
August 2019
CD5.22 “Unlocking Social Housing: How to fix the rules that
are holding back building”; Shelter, April 2022
CD5.23 “Denied the Right to a Safe Home – Exposing the
Housing Emergency”; Shelter, May 2021
CD5.24 Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP Economic
Recovery Plan
CD5.25 National Model Design Code (NMDC)
CD5.26 Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20)
CD5.27 Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19:
Visual Representation of Development Proposals.
CD5.28 Guides for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(GLVIA) 3rd Edition, 2013 (HARD COPY)
CD6 – Relevant Judgements and Appeal Decisions
APP/X0415/A09/2107212/NWF – Little Chalfont Golf
CD6.1
Course
CD6.2 [blank]
APP/X0415/W/20/3265964 – Land off High View,
CD6.3
Chalfont St Giles
APP/X1925/W/21/3273701 – Land South of Heath Lane,
CD6.4
Codicote
APP/B1930/W/20/3265925/ APP/C1950/W/20/3265926
CD6.5 – Roundhouse Farm, Land off Bullens Green Lane,
Colney Heath
APP/W4705/V/18/3208020 – Land at Sun Lane and Ilkey
CD6.6
Road, Burley-in-Wharfdale
APP/X0415/W/18/3202026 – Land to the rear of the Old
CD6.7
Red Lion, High Street, Great Missenden
APP/X0415/W/19/3228107 – Little Chalfont Village Hall,
CD6.8
Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont
APP/G5180/W/18/3206569 – Land to the rear of the
CD6.9 former Dylon International Premises, Station Approach,
Lower Sydenham
APP/D2320/W/20/3247136 – Land at Pear Tree Lane,
CD6.10
Euxton, Chorley
APP/P0119/W/17/3191477 – Land east of Park Lane,
CD6.11
Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
APP/G2435/W/18/3214451, APP/G2435/Q/18/3214498
CD6.12
– Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville
APP/A0665/W/14/2212671 (SoS Decision) – Land off
CD6.13
Darnhall School Lane Winsford Cheshire
APP/H1840/W/19/3241879 – Corner Mead, Newland
CD6.14
Lane, Droitwich Spa
APP/H1840/W/20/3255350 – Land at Church Lane,
CD6.15
Whittington
APP/F2415/W/22/3296353, APP/F2415/W/22/3300240
CD6.16
– Land adjacent to Walton Hall, Chapel Lane, Walton
APP/C1570/W/22/3296426 – Land South of (East of
CD6.17 Griffin Place) Radwinter Road, Sewards End, Saffron
Walden
APP/D3125/W/21/3274197 – Land to the rear of Brock
CD6.18
Cottage, Brize Norton
APP/W0530/W/21/3282234 – Land at St Peters Street,
CD6.19
Cambridgeshire
APP/V3120/W/20/3265465 – Land behind 31-33 The
CD6.20
Causeway, Steventon
APP/N4205/W/22/3299644 – Land at and adjacent
CD6.21
Hulton Park, Bolton
CD6.22 APP/N1730/W/20/3261194 – Fleet Police Station, Fleet
Inspector’s Report into the Eastleigh Local Plan,
CD6.23
February 2015
206.8 APP/K2420/A/13/2208318 – Sketchley House,
CD6.24
Burbage
APP/B3410/W/20/3245077 – Aviation Lane, Burton-
CD6.25
upon-Trent
APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827 – Oxford Brookes University,
CD6.26
South Oxfordshire
CD6.27 APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 – Pulley Lane, Droitwich Spa
APP/M2270/W/21/3282908 – Highgate Hill and Copthall
CD6.28
Avenue, Hawkhurst
CD6.29 APP/A2280/W/20/3259868 – Pump Lane, Rainham
CD6.30 APP/Y3940/W/21/3278256 – Jenner Lane, Malmesbury
Prideaux High Court Judgment [2013] EWHC 1054
CD6.31
(Admin)
APP/W2275/V/11/2158341 – Hermitage Quarry Appeal
CD6.32
Decision
APP/K3605/W/20/3263347 – Homebase site, Walton on
CD6.33
Thames
APP/P3610/W/21/3272074 - Epsom General Hospital
CD6.34
Dorking Road
APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 – Little Sparrows, Sonning
CD6.35
Common
APP/H2265/W/18/3202040 – Land rear of 237-259
CD6.36
London Road, West Malling
APP/Q3115/W/19/3220425 – Land east of Reading
CD6.37
Road, Lower Shiplake
APP/B1930/W/19/3235642 - Land rear of Burston
CD6.38
Garden Centre, Chiswell Green
CD6.39 APP/V0510/W/21/3282241 – Bottisham Appeal Decision
APP/A0665/W/18/3203413 – Beechmoor Garden Centre,
CD6.40
Great Boughton
CD6.41 APP/F0114/W/21/3268794 – Homebase site, Bath
APP/K3605/W/20/3257109 – Royal Cambrige Home,
CD6.42
East Molesey
APP/G2245/W/21/3271595 – Kent & Surrey Golf Club,
CD6.43
Edenbridge
APP/W0530/W/21/3280395 – Land between Haverhill
CD6.44
Road and Hinton Way, Stapleford
CD6.45 [blank]
APP/V0510/W/21/3282241- 163-187 High
CD6.46
Street,Bottisham
APP/P0240/W/21/3289401 – Land south of Arlesey
CD6.47
Road, Stotfold
CD6.48 APP/L3815/W/16/31652283165228__https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3165228__View appeal 3165228 on ACP website__true__ on ACP website__true__ - Oving Road, Chichester
Supreme Court in R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery
CD6.49 (Tadcaster) and others) V North Yorkshire County
Council [2020]
APP/R3650/W/21/3280136 - Land off Scotland Lane,
CD6.50
Haslemere
CD7 – Other Relevant Information
CD7.1 Email on PPA
CD7.2 JTP Urban Design Response
CD7.3 Natural England Objection 05/04/22
CD7.4 Housing Officer’s Response
CD7.5 Education Response
CD7.6 Environmental Health Officer Response
CD7.7 Chilterns Area AONB Management Plan (2019 – 2024)
CD7.8 Urban Design Officer Letter (March 2022)
Urban Design Officer Design Principle Comments
CD7.9
(December 2019)
Planning Inspector Response to the Delivery Sites
CD7.10
DPD
CD7.11 Planning Inspector Letter to Chiltern and South Bucks
CD7.12 Agenda Report Pack for Withdrawal
Meeting of the Growth, Infrastructure and Housing
CD7.13
Select Committee
Little Chalfont Bat Briefing Note 2022 (Ecology
CD7.14
Solutions)
CD7.15 Reptile Note 2022 (Ecology Solutions)
CD7.16 Great Crested Newt Note 2022 (Ecology Solutions)
CD7.17 Badger Note 2022 (Ecology Solutions)
CD7.18 Biodiversity Net Gain Report (Ecology Solutions)
CD7.19 Statement of Clarification – Ecology & Climate Change
CD7.20 Natural England Response (November 2022)
Highways Development Management Response (1
CD7.21
March 2022)
CD7.22 Waterman Tree Note
Technical Note (TN12) Response to
CD7.23
Buckinghamshire Highways
CD8 – Withdrawn Local Plan and Supporting Evidence
CD8.1 Withdrawn CSB Local Plan
ARUP Green Belt Study – Parcel 35 Assessment
CD8.2
(2016)
Full Buckinghamshire/ Arup Green Belt Study
CD8.2a
(2016)
CD8.3 Green Belt Development Options Appraisal (2016)
Green Belt Development Options Appraisal - Post
CD8.4 Preferred Green Belt Options Consultation (November
2017)
CD8.5 Green Belt Assessment Part II (April 2019)
CD8.6 Exceptional Circumstances Document (2019)
CD8.7 Landscape Capacity Document – Terra Firma (2017)
206.9 Landscape Capacity Document – Terra Firma
CD8.7a
(2017) – Proforma for Site SPBP6.
CD8.8 [blank]
Chiltern and South Bucks Economic Development
CD8.9
Strategy (2017)
Chiltern and South Bucks Joint Open Space Study
CD8.10
(2018)
Chiltern and South Bucks District Local Plan –
CD8.11
Transport Topic Paper (2019)
CD8.12 Initial Masterplan Modelling Report, April 2018
CD8.13 Initial Masterplan Modelling Report, November 2018
CD8.14 Masterplan Option Modelling’ Report, July 2019
Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire Affordable
CD8.15
Housing Topic Paper (2019)
CD8.16 Chiltern and South Bucks Townscape Character Study
Chiltern and South Bucks Housing and Economic
CD8.17
Needs Assessment 2019
ID – Inquiry Documents
206.10 Planning Proof of Evidence – Appellant
ID1
– Mr A Kindred
206.11 Planning & Design Proof of Evidence –
ID2
Council – J Fannon
206.12 Little Chalfont Economic Benefits
ID3
Assessment of Margaret Collins BA (Hons)
206.13 Older Persons Needs Assessment of
ID4
Iain Warner BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Proof of Evidence in respect of Ecology and Nature
ID5 Conservation – Jacob Hepworth Bell BSc (Hons),
MIEnvSc, MCIEEM (w/Appendices Part 1-4)
ID6 Lisa Toyne Landscape PoE – Appellant
ID6.1 Lisa Toyne PoE (Summary) – Appellant
ID7 JTP Design PoE – Appellant
ID8 Phill Bell Highways PoE – Appellant
ID9 Highways PoE – Council
ID10 Landscape PoE - Council
James Stacey – Affordable Housing Report –
ID11
Appellant
Andy Moger – Custom and Self Build Need –
ID12
Appellant
ID13 [BLANK]
ID14 Final Statement of Common Ground (Ecology)
Final Statement of Common Ground (Housing
ID15
Need)
ID16 Statement of Common Ground (Highways)
ID17 Matthew Chard Landscape Rebuttal (Appellant)
John Fannon Rebuttal (Council) (Green Belt,
ID18
Design, Planning)
ID19 Niki Huijer Rebuttal (Council) (Landscape)