chiltern and south bucks local plan representations draft...chiltern & south bucks local plan...

Chiltern & South Bucks Local Plan Representations 1

troyplanning.com 14-18 Emerald Street London WC1N 3QA T: 0207 0961 329

LONDON MANCHESTER HAMPSHIRE AMSTERDAM PORTLAND

Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan

Representations

[Local Plan Representation]

22 August 2019




Contents

1.0 Context ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan (Regulation 19) ........................................................... 3

2.0 Green Belt Policy and Site Assessment ...................................................................................... 4

Green Belt Purposes .................................................................................................................. 4

Green Belt Assessment Part 1 (March 2016) ............................................................................. 5

3.0 Proposed insetting of Jordans ................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Removal of areas of land from the Green Belt .......................................................................... 8

5.0 Rural exception sites .................................................................................................................. 9

6.0 Sustainability Appraisal ............................................................................................................ 10

7.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 11

22 August 2019




Planning Policy Team

Chiltern and South Bucks

By email only: [email protected].

Representations to the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation

Dear Sirs,

Chalfont St Giles Parish Council is submitting the representations below to the Chiltern and South

Bucks Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation, as the Parish Council has concerns regarding the

soundness of the Local Plan in its current form. The representations specifically focus on: (I) the

approach taken to the proposed insetting of the village of Jordans within the Green Belt, (part of

Policy SP PP1 Protected – Green Belt); (ii) the lack of exceptional circumstances to justify amending

the Green Belt boundary in three locations around Chalfont St Giles village; and (iii) the proposed

approach to rural exception sites (Policy DM LP4).

1.0 Context

1.1 Chalfont St Giles is a rural Parish within Chiltern District; there are two villages - Chalfont St

Giles and Jordans. Much of the Parish is within the Green Belt. The northern part of the

Parish lies within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Chalfont St Giles

village is currently inset from the Green Belt; the emerging Local Plan proposes to inset the

village of Jordans from the Green Belt.

1.2 Chiltern District Council held a referendum on the Chalfont St Giles Neighbourhood Plan in

June 2019. Over 91% of votes were in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan and therefore the

Parish Council is currently awaiting its formal adoption by the District Council.

Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan (Regulation 19)

The Plan proposes the removal of Jordans from the Green Belt, and amendments to the

Green Belt boundary around the village of Chalfont St Giles; these proposed boundary

changes are all of primary concern to the Parish Council. The proposed insetting of Jordans

in the Green Belt, the proposed amendments to the Green Belt boundary around the village

of Chalfont St Giles, and the approach to rural exception sites are each discussed in turn

below.

mailto:[email protected]




2.0 Green Belt Policy and Site Assessment

Green Belt Purposes

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 includes the five purposes of the Green

Belt. Whilst it is not considered necessary to present national policy detail here, certain of

these purposes are particularly relevant to Jordans.

2.2 An assessment of the Green Belt in relation to Chalfont St Giles and Jordans was published in

the Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (GBA) Part 1 (January 2016) - Parcel Proformas

(GBA 2016) included reference to both as part of parcel 41a. The assessment considered to

what extent the parcel met the five purposes of the Green Belt. This was a sound approach,

which found that the land parcel - within which the village of Jordans is located - performed

strongly against Green Belt purposes. The GBA used a parcel size of some 699.5ha and it is

therefore important to also consider some of the Green Belt purposes more specifically, in

terms of how they relate to Jordans.

2.3 Firstly, one of the purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into

one another. Whilst the Parish Council is not suggesting that Jordans would be classified as a

town, it is important to note the intent of this purpose.

2.4 The land to the rear of the properties on the west of Copse Lane is crucial to maintaining the

gap between Jordans and Seer Green, and to preventing the two villages from merging. If

the properties in Jordans were to be inset, speculative development could come forward on

the land to the rear of the properties on Copse Lane. This outcome would significantly

weaken the important gap

2.5 between the two settlements and potentially lead to the eventual merging of the villages.

Additional commentary on the 2016 GBA is provided below.

2.6 Of further importance is the fourth Green Belt purpose, to preserve the setting and special

character of historic towns. A large part of Jordans is a Conservation Area (known as Old

Jordans, and including part of village surrounding The Green) which was designated as such

in 1987. The Conservation Area document states: “The Conservation Area is an area of

contrasts with regard to origin, physical characteristics and present-day function, but it is

unified by social and religious history1”. There is particular association with the Quaker

movement, dating as far back as the 17th century. As such, the village is an historic

attraction for tourists.

2.7 Whilst the Conservation Area offers a strong level of protection for parts of the village, the

Green Belt in turn both preserves and enhances the setting and character of the

Conservation Area, which as is demonstrated above, is of significant importance.

1 https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/11461/Jordans/pdf/Jordans.pdf?m=636416055728930000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/11461/Jordans/pdf/Jordans.pdf?m=636416055728930000




Green Belt Assessment Part 1 (March 2016)

2.8 A number of Green Belt assessments have been undertaken to inform the decisions made

in the emerging Local Plan.

Findings of the GBA Part 1 2.9 It is of particular importance that the Buckinghamshire GBA Part 1 concludes clearly, in no

uncertain terms, that the parcel within which Jordans is situated makes a strong

contribution to the Green Belt purposes and should not proceed through the Green Belt

assessment for further consideration. This is shown in table 6.1 of the Part 1 Assessment

(‘Summary of recommended areas’, which parcel 41a does not form part of) and further

shown in a diagrammatic way in Map 6.1b showing Areas for Further Consideration at

Stage 2, South2. This map very clearly shows that the Parish of Chalfont St Giles is not an

area for consideration in Stage 2 of Green Belt assessment. It is therefore entirely clear that

the parcel of land in which the village falls was considered to perform well against Green

Belt purposes, and it is unclear why it is now proposed that Jordans is inset, when there

have been no material changes to the village since 2016. Further reasons to not inset

Jordans are discussed below.

3.0 Proposed insetting of Jordans

3.1 The NPPF (2019) at paragraph 140 states: “If it is necessary to restrict development in a

village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the

village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green

Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other

means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management

policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt”.

3.2 The South Bucks and Chiltern “Review of Settlements within the Green Belt (April 2019)3”

reflects the NPPF and has the purpose of reviewing the status of settlements within the

Green Belt. The Review has a three-stage methodology which covers the following matters:

“Can a settlement area be identified as a village?

Assessment of openness

Can a defensible Green Belt boundary be defined?”

3.3 It is therefore understood by the Parish Council that villages that do not contribute to the

openness of the Green Belt should be inset. However, the

3.4 Parish Council has concerns that the evidence produced as part of the Buckinghamshire

GBA has been largely disregarded during the preparation of this review of settlements in

the Green Belt. Jordans was previously found to contribute strongly to the purposes of the

2https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8112/Map-6-1b-Areas-for-Further-Consideration-at-Stage-2-South-

/pdf/ARP_GI_6.1b_FurtherConsiderations_South.pdf?m=635931431406100000 3https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13069/Green-Belt-Settlement-

Review/pdf/Review_of_Villages_within_the_Green_Belt_-_april_2019_final.pdf?m=636933615910270000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8112/Map-6-1b-Areas-for-Further-Consideration-at-Stage-2-South-/pdf/ARP_GI_6.1b_FurtherConsiderations_South.pdf?m=635931431406100000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8112/Map-6-1b-Areas-for-Further-Consideration-at-Stage-2-South-/pdf/ARP_GI_6.1b_FurtherConsiderations_South.pdf?m=635931431406100000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13069/Green-Belt-Settlement-Review/pdf/Review_of_Villages_within_the_Green_Belt_-_april_2019_final.pdf?m=636933615910270000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13069/Green-Belt-Settlement-Review/pdf/Review_of_Villages_within_the_Green_Belt_-_april_2019_final.pdf?m=636933615910270000




Green Belt, as were a number of other villages including Tatling End and Wexham Street. It

is not clear why their contributions to the purposes of the Green Belt have been

disregarded in this Review, when assessing the villages to be inset.

3.5 For Jordans, the village clearly makes a positive contribution to the open character of the

Green Belt and it should therefore remain in the Green Belt.

3.6 Whilst the Parish Council considers the proposed insetting of Jordans to be unjustified - as

explained above - and that Chiltern and South Bucks should reconsider their approach,

there are also a number of key points regarding the proposed settlement boundary which

are set out below.

3.7 The Parish Council is concerned that the proposed settlement boundary extends further

south than the built form of the village. It is considered that it would be more appropriate

for the settlement boundary to the south west of Jordans to not extend southwards down

Copse Lane but instead, to end at Seer Green Lane. The proposed boundary would

therefore include the few properties on the south side of Seer Green Lane between Beech

Lane and Jordans Lane, but not those on Copse Lane.

3.8 This is considered to be a more appropriate boundary, as the existing residential properties

on Copse Lane are well-spaced and in large plots, and therefore contribute to the openness

of the Green Belt. Further, they comprise ribbon development, which is considered to be an

unsustainable pattern of development that should not be encouraged further.

3.9 Further justification for suggesting an amendment to the proposed Green Belt boundary is

related to the boundary types themselves. The Chiltern and

3.10 South Bucks GBA Part Two Update (April 2019)4 includes, at table 3 (Criterion Scoring), a

list of the potential boundary types for the Green Belt. It states that boundaries that are

“likely to be weaker”’ include:

Existing development with soft, irregular or inconsistent boundaries (e.g. back

gardens of residential properties)

Unmade roads

Footpaths

Fences

Field boundaries

Unprotected woodland, trees or hedgerows

3.11 Certain parts of the boundary that is being proposed to define the settlement of Jordans

are of great concern to the Parish Council in this context, given that in a number of

instances the boundary is formed from types that are identified as being likely to be weak

4 https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13094/Green-Belt-Assessment-Part-2-April-2019-

/pdf/Green_Belt_Part_Two_Update_Main_Report_final_draft_may.pdf?m=636934472694700000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13094/Green-Belt-Assessment-Part-2-April-2019-/pdf/Green_Belt_Part_Two_Update_Main_Report_final_draft_may.pdf?m=636934472694700000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13094/Green-Belt-Assessment-Part-2-April-2019-/pdf/Green_Belt_Part_Two_Update_Main_Report_final_draft_may.pdf?m=636934472694700000




in the GBA Part 2. It is considered unsound for the Councils to have produced this part of

the Local Plan’s evidence base, without adhering to earlier findings.

3.12 For example, the residential gardens to the west of Copse Lane form a weak boundary, as

per the GBA Part 2. Further, in the GBA Part Two, Volume 1 (“Assessment Recommended

Areas”), the use of residential back gardens as a Green Belt boundary is cited as a reason to

warrant changing such boundaries to a more permanent feature5. It would therefore be

more appropriate for the boundary to end at Seer Green Lane where an existing road can

form the boundary, and ancient woodland would prevent further sprawl. This is further

exemplified with the properties on Dean Wood Road, which are proposed to be inset, yet

the boundary is formed of residential gardens, which are weak and do not align with the

findings of the GBA Part 2.

Windfall and Limited Infilling 3.13 Given that there are not any proposed housing allocations in the parish of Chalfont St Giles

in the Publication Plan, a fundamental question presents itself, in terms of understanding

the purpose of insetting the village and removing some parcels of land from the Green Belt.

3.14 The insetting of Jordans and Policy SP PP1 suggest the enabling of ‘minor windfall

development’ in the village, with the insetting making this form of residential development a

possibility. As there are no allocations proposed in Jordans, any such speculative housing

would constitute ‘windfall development’6. As the housing requirement for the whole of

Chiltern and South Bucks has been accounted for, including an allowance for windfall

development, the Parish Council questions why the insetting needs to take place.

3.15 The windfall allowance in the emerging Plan is set at 90 dwellings per year for the first five

years of the plan period (it is stated that “years 6-15 of the plan period have identified HELAA

sites”). Policy SP PP1 states that some of the villages have been inset to enable minor

windfall development. However, the windfall allowance in a Plan should be based on there

being strong evidence that historic windfall trends will continue and the NPPF 2019 states at

paragraph 70 that “where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated

supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of

supply”.

3.16 If the Councils are relying on the insetting of villages - which constitutes a change from the

status quo - for the delivery of windfall sites, then it should be questioned how the windfall

figure can be justified. One can therefore conclude that the windfall figure is reliant on

villages being inset and therefore the “compelling evidence” required by the NPPF is not

present.

5https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13093/Volume-1-Part-2-Assessment-Recommended-Areas-April-

2019/pdf/Green_Belt_Assessment_Part_Two_-_Volume_1_(April_2019)1.pdf?m=636934475731270000 Assessment of RSA 11, section 3 6 As per the NPPF 2019, windfall sites are defined as “sites not specifically identified in the development plan”.

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13093/Volume-1-Part-2-Assessment-Recommended-Areas-April-2019/pdf/Green_Belt_Assessment_Part_Two_-_Volume_1_(April_2019)1.pdf?m=636934475731270000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/13093/Volume-1-Part-2-Assessment-Recommended-Areas-April-2019/pdf/Green_Belt_Assessment_Part_Two_-_Volume_1_(April_2019)1.pdf?m=636934475731270000




Proposed Modifications 3.17 The Parish Council questions the reasons for insetting any of the villages at all but if they are

to be removed from the Green Belt, then the Parish Council proposes that the inset

boundary for Jordans is modified to not extend further south than Seer Green Lane.

4.0 Removal of areas of land from the Green Belt

Principle

4.1 The Publication Local Plan proposes to amend Green Belt boundaries across the Districts,

with three of these locations being on the periphery of Chalfont St Giles village. Two of these

amendments are at Stratton Chase Drive and the other at Bowstridge Lane.

4.2 The “Chiltern and South Bucks Inner Green Belt Boundary Review”7 (IGR) assessed parcels of

Green Belt land which the Councils considered to be ‘anomalies’. Parcels were considered an

anomaly if the Green Belt boundary could not be demonstrated as strong, permanent and

defensible and able to endure beyond the plan period. The purpose of the Review was not to

release land of a strategic scale from the Green Belt, but to make small scale additions to, or

deletions from it.

4.3 The NPPF, at paragraph 137, effectively lists the elements that the strategic policy making

authority should be able to demonstrate they have taken into account, that have led to

them concluding that there are exceptional circumstances to justify changing Green Belt

boundaries. These three elements relate to the authority’s strategy examining non-Green

Belt development opportunities for meeting identified need.

4.4 The Parish Council also notes that in July 2019, new national Planning Practice Guidance

(PPG) was published. Entitled ‘Advice on the role of the Green Belt in the planning system’,

it states that: “Where it has been demonstrated that it is necessary to release Green Belt land

for development, strategic policy-making authorities should set out policies for compensatory

improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the remaining Green Belt

land”. It is evident that neither the Publication Plan nor the evidence base demonstrate that

Green Belt release is necessary, either in terms of insetting Jordans, or changing the

boundary around parts of Chalfont St Giles. In any event - and accepting that the Plan pre-

dates the PPG - it does not set out any proposed compensatory improvements for the loss of

Green Belt status in relation to either village; it would have to be modified accordingly,

should the boundary changes currently proposed be confirmed. Any such compensatory

measures would need to be set out in detail in consultation at modifications stage; such an

addition would be considered by the Parish Council to be a main modification.

7https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8228/Inner-Green-Belt-Review-Methodology-July-2017-

/pdf/FINAL_IGR_methodology_07-2017.pdf?m=636548038376470000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8228/Inner-Green-Belt-Review-Methodology-July-2017-/pdf/FINAL_IGR_methodology_07-2017.pdf?m=636548038376470000

https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/media/8228/Inner-Green-Belt-Review-Methodology-July-2017-/pdf/FINAL_IGR_methodology_07-2017.pdf?m=636548038376470000




4.5 The Parish Council therefore expresses concern that these sites are being proposed for

removal from the Green Belt without a purpose, or sufficient demonstration of exceptional

circumstances - and with no compensatory measures. It is not clear from the Publication

Plan or the evidence base that an examination of all other reasonable options for

development has been undertaken, nor are the released sites allocated for development

with compensatory measures elsewhere, therefore their removal from the Green Belt is not

consistent with the policy criteria in NPPF paragraph 137 for changing its boundary, nor with

the PPG.

Exceptional Circumstances 4.6 The IGR considers the three locations around Chalfont St Giles village and attempts to show

that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant removal of each parcel from the Green Belt.

The reasons given are that the existing boundaries of the Green Belt in these locations are

not strong and are based on residential gardens. As stated in the preceding

4.7 section, the Councils propose to use residential garden boundaries in the creation of inset

settlement boundaries and the Parish Council therefore raises the very clear inconsistency in

the approach being taken and highlights the conclusion that the Plan cannot be found

sound.

Windfall 4.8 Comments made above with regard to the insetting of Jordans consider the concept of

windfall sites; they are similarly applicable to these parcels of land. There are not any

proposed allocations for development in Chalfont St Giles village, and therefore any

residential development that does come forward, will be considered as windfall. The reader

should at this point refer to paras. 3.14 and 3.16 above and the comments on the flawed

application of a windfall allowance.

Proposed Modification 4.9 The Parish Council does not consider that the exceptional circumstances cited for each of

these parcels i.e. that the existing boundaries are not strong enough, is adequate

justification.

5.0 Rural exception sites

The Parish Council wishes to raise its very considerable concerns regarding the consultation Plan’s

policy approach to rural exception sites, in the context of the current, albeit very early stage of

Paradigm Housing’s emerging proposal in the Green Belt at High View, Chalfont St Giles.

In pursuing High View as a rural exception site, the Parish Council is assuming that it is not intended

by Paradigm Housing at present to seek its removal from the Green Belt. In any event, it is relevant




to note that the Councils - through the current development plan making process - have already

concluded that there should be no Green Belt boundary change here at Chalfont St Giles.

It is noted by the Parish Council that in national policy terms, rural exception sites can be appropriate development in the Green Belt. They are defined in the NPPF as ‘limited affordable housing for local community needs’ in para. 145, and as follows in the Glossary:

“Rural exception sites: Small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity where sites

would not normally be used for housing. Rural exception sites seek to address the needs of

the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have

an existing family or employment connection. A proportion of market homes may be allowed

on the site at the local planning authority’s discretion, for example where essential to enable

the delivery of affordable units without grant funding.”

The Parish Council is aware that Paradigm Housing have referred to seeking a rural exception site at

High View for up to 90 homes. To be consistent with national policy, there is no scope or justification

for this major scale of development to be defined as ‘small’, wherever it might be located in the

Green Belt. It would also be entirely unacceptable to the Parish Council if Paradigm Housing sought

to bring a site in the Green Belt at High View forward that included any substantial ‘proportion of

market homes’, whatever the stated justification.

To address these significant concerns and ensure that large scale, major residential development

cannot come forward in the Green Belt by way of being termed a rural exception site, the Plan

should be revised to be consistent with the NPPF. It should state in Policy DM LP4 – Rural Exception

Sites that the policy applies only to small sites; both the policy and its supporting text should

expressly state that small sites are for minor development only (i.e. less than 10 homes in total).

6.0 Sustainability Appraisal

6.1 In 2019, the Regulation 19 Sustainability Appraisal (SA) was published. This document is a

legal requirement which assists in the preparation of the Local Plan and considers its social,

economic and environmental performance, whilst assessing reasonable policy alternatives.

6.2 The SA has considered reasonable alternatives and assessed the proposed site allocations

and Local Plan policies against SA objectives. At Appendix E, the strategic policies of the

Local Plan have been assessed. However, the assessment of Policy SP PP1 (which proposes

to inset Jordans) is inadequate and does not fully address the implications of the insetting

of villages, but instead focuses on any future development not causing harm to the Green

Belt, as the villages will no longer be in the Green Belt.

6.3 The Local Plan itself is therefore not sound in this regard, as it is not supported by evidence

and appraisal that demonstrate that the implications of the policies have been understood

in full.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf




7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The principal concerns of the Parish Council relate to the proposed insetting of Jordans and

the amendment to the Green Belt boundary around Chalfont St Giles to remove ‘anomalies’

by land release.

7.2 As discussed in these representations, it is not considered that there is sufficient

justification through the GBA iterations to justify the consideration of Jordans for insetting

as a starting point, nor are there sufficiently explained exceptional circumstances to inset

the village.

7.3 The Parish Council contends that if insetting is pursued, then the currently proposed

boundary is not justified and could potentially lead to speculative and unsuitable

development.

7.4 The Parish Council also contends that the allowance for windfall delivery is flawed in its

approach, as the Councils are reliant on changing Green Belt boundaries in order for a

supply from windfalls to be delivered.

7.5 In terms of the amendments to the Green Belt boundary around Chalfont St Giles that are

to correct ‘anomalies’, the Parish Council does not consider that exceptional circumstances

exist to warrant the changes proposed.

7.6 The Parish Council therefore suggests that for the reasons set out in these representations,

the Proposed Modifications to the Plan should not inset Jordans, nor amend the Green Belt

boundary around Chalfont St Giles village.

7.7 With reference to Policy DM LP4 – Rural Exception Sites, to rectify an inconsistency with the

NPPF, the Plan should expressly state in the policy that it applies only to small sites (i.e. less

than 10 homes in total). This revision is seen as essential, in the context of emerging

proposals by Paradigm Housing for a potentially large-scale rural exception site in the

Green Belt at High View, Chalfont St Giles.

7.8 The Parish Council would like to make it clear that they concur with the representations

made by Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and Little Chalfont Parish Council to the

consultation plan.

7.9 For the avoidance of doubt, the Parish Council wishes to express their interest in

participating in the examination hearings.

Yours faithfully,




TROY HAYES (MRTPI) Managing Director TROY PLANNING + DESIGN

chiltern and south bucks local plan representations draft...chiltern & south bucks local plan...

Documents