96 replies to this topic

[Fran]

Where?

And does anyone have any realistic ideas as to how one could try to get specific unused brownfield sites developed?

You can look up the owners via the Land Registry, but you'd still need developers, cash etc etc.

N-T-A

[a t o m i c]

Incidentally, I'm amazed no one took the bait earlier in this thread about whether the fields behind Tesco, between Old Amersham and Amersham on the Hill would ever be suitable for development....!?

Having walked through those fields on many summer evenings, the idea is too appalling to contemplate. If it WAS developed, it'd end up covered in ultra-high density Tudorbethan crap, and Amersham would take on the look and feel of Milton Keynes.

[Fran]

Well building on those fields is not something I'd welcome and I imagine the chances of it ever happening are near zero, so it's a pretty pointless debate in some ways, but, mightn't it be slightly less awful to extend a little into fields that are already surrounded by buildings, roads and railtrack on all sides than it would be to encroach on pristine land beyond the town or to build in back gardens?

I too hate horridly homogenous Tudorbethan "architecture", but that's probably harder to stop than development per se, because there is a subjective element of taste (or lack of), whereas planning applications are meant to be compared with more objective criteria in local plans etc, though that also includes vaguer ideas of retaining the character of an area. I guess architecture degrees should encourage a more creative and original approach, but even then, developers would be reluctant in case less traditional designs didn't sell.

N-T-A

[flyssy]

If you object to this application on the grounds of inappropriate in-fill then you ought to put in an objection to CH/2006/1409/OA as well.

The latter is an even more inappropriate in-fill development in the garden of 123 Hundred Acre Lane.

This development, like the First Avenue development:

• would be an inappropriately dense and an out-of-character development
• would also increase traffic on Hundred Acre Lane and First Avenue
• worst of all, it would provide an access road for further developments along the back of Hundred Acre Lane and First Avenue, encouraging further applications for development.

If you look at the plans for CH/2006/1409/OA you will see that the developer has designed the access road precisely so that it can be extended into neighbouring properties ie the developer is providing for further development when they (or others) have been able to acquire the neighbouring land.

I know this application doesn't have the High & Over sensitivity but if either of these two active proposals or any similar future proposal got the go ahead it would lead in time to pressure for in-fill development along the whole of the rears First Avenue and Hundred Acre Lane.

I'll be happy to write a letter of objection on this issue as well..

[Fran]

The application CH/2006/1409/OA to build a new road and houses behind 121-123 Hundred Acres Lane (mentioned above) goes to the planning committee on 5th Oct. Fingers crossed that it's rejected. And there's now a separate topic for it, within this Planning & Development area.

But if that does get the go-ahead (which hopefully it won't, as it's little different from the previous, failed, application), would it set a precedent in that corner that would make it more likely for the First Avenue one to get passed...? I certainly hope not.

And if First Avenue and Hundred Acres back-fill got built... how long till the two were joined up and there was a whole extra road?!!

N-T-A

[Fran]

See also the first post in the topic "Infill 121-123 Hundred Acres Lane".

This gives details of the case officers' report into that application, some of the points of which are relevant to objections to this First Avenue proposal.

N-T-A

[Zoom]

Here is the link to the case officers report into the Hundred Acre Lane application referred to by N-T-A https://isa.chiltern...60925/29499.pdf

[Fran]

Excellent.

As the council planning website normally makes you check boxes re the licensing agreement before getting to any specific applications, I'd assumed a direct link wouldn't work.

Sometimes software loopholes are actually a convenience!

N-T-A

[Fran]

The similar, nearby outline proposal for Hundred Acres Lane (which has its own topic here) has been withdrawn. However, the developer's letter withdrawing it includes the worrying phrase,
"I confirm our agreement for me to prepare and negotiate with you a detailed application which will meet with your approval".

So if at first/second they don't succeed, they up the ante and keep going till they do. (Plus we'll be paying the salary of the planning official who helps them create a successful proposal!)

[Fran]

This proposal is going to the planning committee on Thursday 26th October (during half term).

There is also a letter on the planning website from the developers saying that they will now make 30% of the 12 proposed homes "affordable".

That may solve a need for such housing, but accentuates the fundamental difference in character of the proposed homes and the surrounding pre-existing ones around them, such as High and Over.

More worryingly, the obligation to provide affordable housing only applies to developments of more than 15 homes, or to smaller developments when they can be seen as part of a larger area that is likely for future development. Does this effectively mean that the council has already decided they might as well allow building on as many of these back gardens as developers like?

[Zoom]

Buried away in the planning department responses to the hundred acre lane proposals you can see that the previous Hundred Acre Lane proposal was rejected last year because it was in "a larger area that is likely for future development" and did NOT include affordable housing. There is a similar comment in the case officers report about the previous First Avenue application.

The unstated inference from this is that:
1) the council HAS ALREADY identified the back gardens of First Avenue and Hundred Acre Lane area as "a larger area that is likely for future development"
2) because of that any application in this area SHOULD include affordable housing
3) applications that do NOT include affordable may be rejected precisely because they DON'T include affordable housing rather than because they DO

For as long as the council have a view that the back gardens of First Avenue and Hundred Acre Lane are "a larger area that is likely for future development" there will be a continual stream of applications for development.

It is this 'designation' of the area for development that really needs to be tackled and I would guess that would be best be done through the councillor for the area.

[Fran]

It is this 'designation' of the area for development that really needs to be tackled and I would guess that would be best be done through the councillor for the area.

So why don't local people know of this designation and what can we do to challenge it?

I have looked on the net and got the email addresses for the following:

Cheryl Gillan MP, shawmj@parliament.uk

Cllr Don Phillips, Chairman of Chiltern Planning, dphillips@chiltern.gov.uk

Cllr Davida Allen, on the planning committee and her ward covers First Avenue etc, dallen@chiltern.gov.uk

Carol Castle, Head of Planning Services, ccastle@chiltern.gov.uk


I'll be writing to all of them; anyone with similar concerns, please do likewise.

[PaulEden]

Are you sure the email address for Cheryl Gillan is correct? It doesn't look right.

Added> Oh I see. That email address is for her constituency office.

[Fran]

Are you sure the email address for Cheryl Gillan is correct? It doesn't look right.

Added> Oh I see. That email address is for her constituency office.

Yes, it is the email of her constituency office secretary who is Mary J Shaw; MPs usually give out a secretarial email address rather than one of their own.

That said, I haven't emailed her yet, so I can't guarantee it works, but I did get it from her page on epolitix, which also gives an alternative email for a different secretary based in Westminster.

[Fran]

The proposal has just been amended to include 30% affordable homes, but there are no details of exactly what the new proposals are and no one has been notified about this change (other than that the developer's letter appearing on the planning website).

So it's worth emailing or phoning the planning dept asap (before Thursday 26 October) to ask them to defer considering this application and make the developer reapply so that neighbours, and indeed the planning committee, have a chance to see exactly what the new plans are and to comment accordingly:

planning@chiltern.gov.uk or 01494 732950 re CH/2006/1474/FA

It surely cannot be right for anyone to submit plans, for people to comment on them, but the plans that are actually put before the committee to be changed at the last minute without the opportunity for anyone to reconsider their objections (or even their support).

There must be some accountability, democracy and transparency etc in such matters.

[Fran]

Tonight (26.10.06) the planning committee DEFERRED this application to enable councillors to visit the site and to ask for a second opinion from Highways.

This means it will probably come before the committee for discussion in 3 weeks' time, Thursday 16th November.

So more time to campaign against it. Please write to councillors, our MP and the council if you haven't already done so (contact details in earlier posts on this thread or click here - planning contacts).

[Fran]

This was heavily REJECTED at the planning meeting tonight (I think it was 13 to 2 against giving permission).

Great news, and certainly a major factor was the vigorous campaigning by flyssy who started this thread, aided by nearly 40 people who wrote letters/emails of objection and also the excellent and forthright points made at the meeting by Davida Allen, the local councillor for the ward, and many of the other councillors.

Obviously with so much land having been bought over so many years, it's likely that the developer will want to appeal or submit another proposal, but it would have to be something radically different and hopefully it won't be any time soon.

[mvjt]

This was heavily REJECTED at the planning meeting tonight (I think it was 13 to 2 against giving permission).

Hi
I couldn't attend this meeting due to prior commitments (but did get to the last one). What were the grounds on which they rejected the application?
thanks

[Fran]

What were the grounds on which they rejected the application?

Most councillors had severe concerns about the safety of the proposed access road, but as the Highways Dept inexplicably didn't object, they couldn't use that as grounds for refusal. And Highways went further, to point out that any problems relating to parked vehicles causing obstruction or even impeding visibility were not a planning issue and should be dealt with separately, if and when they arose (I guess that means waiting for an accident to happen).

Similarly, as English Heritage and the council's Historic Buildings Officer had expressed concern and caveats but not asked for refusal, they felt they could not use High and Over as reason for refusal.

The minutes will have it in all the right council-ese, but as I recall, there were three main reasons for refusal, all of which related to the topography:

* The adverse visual impact of the very high retaining wall that would be required for an access road on such steep slope. Concerns about the safety of it for supporting whole houses up the hill (possible subsidence etc?) were also mentioned, but I'm not sure whether that will count as one of the actual grounds for refusal.

* The loss of amenity to First Avenue residents, principally that the fronts of the new houses would be very close to the backs of the existing ones (closer than the previous application) and because of the steepness of the slope there would be severe loss of privacy etc. At least once councillor who had been in favour when they saw the plans said they had changed their mind when they visited the site and looked out of the back bedroom window of one of the houses.

* Concerns about trees and screening. The existing ones are mostly deciduous, so only provide screening for part of the year. Also the steepness of the slope negates their effectiveness to some extent.

I think that's the gist. If not, hopefully someone else will put me right.

Incidentally, there was a good crowd at the meeting. Apparently, and rather to my surprise, "that makes a difference". So if there's ever a planning proposal you have strong views about, it's worth getting people to attend, even though they can't actively participate at that stage.

[Matthew (MPJ/Admin)]

Most councillors had severe concerns about the safety of the proposed access road, but as the Highways Dept inexplicably didn't object, they couldn't use that as grounds for refusal. Similarly, as English Heritage and the council's Historic Buildings Officer had expressed concern and caveats but not asked for refusal, they felt they could not use High and Over as reason for refusal.

It does make you wonder how bad a concern has to be for the various departments to stand up and object.

[Fran]

It does make you wonder how bad a concern has to be for the various departments to stand up and object.

Absolutely. Especially Highways. What is so odd is that apparently they objected to a proposal on the site 10 years ago, but now, with more traffic, more parked cars, a provable record of more accidents and the proposed access road on the steepest part of the hill (as opposed to the slightly less dangerous point proposed 10 years ago), their safety concerns have evaporated.

Presumably their guidelines have changed, but if so, they clearly need changing again. Whatever else one thinks about how and if the site should be built on, it doesn't take much imagination or technical knowledge to see the inherent danger of what is proposed.

[mvjt]

The Highway's agency astounds me. I have lost track of the number of near accidents i have had on that part of the hill with cars coming too fast over the brow ... particularly with all the parked cars on the side of the road. Maybe they intend to stop cars parking on that part so therefore don't see that as part of the issue (I'd be interested to know if that is the case).

Then there is also the issue of winter weather. In recent years I can remember at least three occasions where the road has frozen sufficiently in winter that it has not been possible for cars to get up or down the road.....and yet the agency considers it safe to have an exit/entrance right at the steepest part of the road.


Anyway - we have been given a reprieve *for now*. I'm sure that the developer will return with a new plan soon and we will be making all the same arguments all over again.

[Zoom]

The Highway's agency astounds me... ...and yet the agency considers it safe to have an exit/entrance right at the steepest part of the road.

Well I think it is more jobs-worth than that. In general these days local officials have been neutered by national policies and guidelines and the threat of judicial review/legal action. The 'safest' thing for them to do locally is to slavishly apply national policies and guidelines so that if challenged they can show evidence that they have followed guidelines.

In other words they do not, in practice, assess the application on its merits, they simply assess whether it complies with policies and guidelines.

A stupid idea that complies with policies and guidelines (like this one) gets the nod because if the official said "despite what the policies and guidelines say this is a stupid idea" they could find themselves at the wrong end of a legal challenge which they don't have the resources to fight.

When an official gives a YES recommendation they are not saying they think it is a good idea they are simply saying there are no policies or guidelines that rule it out.

The problem is the disempowerment of local officials and local democracy combined with the superficiality of national policies and guidelines and their inability to cater for local conditions (eg an access road on a hill).

Anyway - we have been given a reprieve *for now*. I'm sure that the developer will return with a new plan soon and we will be making all the same arguments all over again.

Er... well it hasn't quite gone away yet. The developer could appeal this application to the Secretary of State so there is still the possibility of the local planning decision being overruled.

[David P]

Hang on, everyone. You've got your way, planning permission has been denied and yet you are still criticising them.

As for the road safety/traffic argument, I suspect that very little new housing would get built if they always agreed that argument. Just about every application that goes in gets objected to on those grounds, so it is no wonder that the authorities are pretty immune to it.

[Fran]

The Highway's agency astounds me...Maybe they intend to stop cars parking on that part so therefore don't see that as part of the issue.

Unfortunately dangerous parking and obstruction etc are not planning issues and hence not a valid ground for refusing an application, i.e. you have to wait for the problem to arise before tackling it! This was made explicit in the letter from the Highways dept that is on the CDC website relating to this application, some of which was read out in the meeting.

And the councillors on the planning committee can not (or don't?) use highway issues as grounds for refusal unless the Highways dept objects.

So if/when it comes back, at least two different approaches will be required:

* Try to persuade the Highways dept to change their mind back to what it was in 1996 and recommend refusal, so that the planning committee have the option of using that as grounds for refusal.

* Highlight to those on the planning committee which of the reasons for refusal this time are still applicable. No harm mentioning the issues with the road, but it seems that without the support of Highways, they are relatively powerless on that count.

Hang on, everyone. You've got your way, planning permission has been denied and yet you are still criticising them.

Yes, we've got our way - but only for now. It will come back in some form or other.

No, we're not criticising. Or rather, the criticism is aimed at the Highways dept and at central government, not at the councillors who had to make the decision. Most of the councillors on the planning committee made the effort to visit the site, they discussed the issue thoroughly and ultimately voted decisively against it.

As for the road safety/traffic argument, I suspect that very little new housing would get built if they always agreed that argument.

I presume you haven't looked at this specific location. The reason the proposal was deferred at the previous planning meeting was primarily because the councillors could not believe that Highways did not object and so wanted to ask them to come out and revisit the site to address their concerns.

These concerns are not just the usual NIMBY ones about more traffic and more parked cars, it is hugely exacerbated by the topography - as proved by the reasons for refusing permission. Remember, some councillors who thought it looked OK on paper, totally reversed their views after visiting the site.

The extreme slope going both up First Avenue and sideways towards High & Over makes it impossible to create a narrow side road at the steepest part of the road safely, and to do it at all would require an enormous and very unsightly retaining wall. And the steepness of the slope from the houses towards H&O makes the loss of privacy far far greater than would be the case on almost any other site.

[mvjt]

Hang on, everyone. You've got your way, planning permission has been denied and yet you are still criticising them.

As for the road safety/traffic argument, I suspect that very little new housing would get built if they always agreed that argument. Just about every application that goes in gets objected to on those grounds, so it is no wonder that the authorities are pretty immune to it.

I'm with Fran - we haven't got our way....it will be back in a different form and given highway's stance access will be in the same place.

That particular point on First Avenue is the steepest part of the hill, just over the brow of the hill where cars chase down very fast. I have problems using an exit just near that part of the hill, with umpteen near hits from cars who were not there on the hill when I started leaving the driveway but which had to come to a quick and unexpected halt because they were travelling too fast for the road ....to increase the amount of traffic at just that point is an accident waiting to happen.

and as for the logistics of the access road.....

As for the Councillors - my thanks for making the effort to come and see the area to see why so many of us are concerned and many thanks for making the decision you did

[flyssy]

I'm with Fran - we haven't got our way....it will be back in a different form and given highway's stance access will be in the same place.

That particular point on First Avenue is the steepest part of the hill, just over the brow of the hill where cars chase down very fast. I have problems using an exit just near that part of the hill, with umpteen near hits from cars who were not there on the hill when I started leaving the driveway but which had to come to a quick and unexpected halt because they were travelling too fast for the road ....to increase the amount of traffic at just that point is an accident waiting to happen.

and as for the logistics of the access road.....

As for the Councillors - my thanks for making the effort to come and see the area to see why so many of us are concerned and many thanks for making the decision you did

I just want to back up everything Fran has said, and also to re-iterate that we have no criticism of the Councillors, on the contrary, all except one were very diligent in their approach to this and discussed the matter from every angle. It is telling that the only Councillor who spoke in favour of the scheme was the only one who didn't visit the site in person...

I have heard that the developer intends to appeal the councils decison in the very near future..we will have to wait and see what happens next, but the battle isn't over yet by a long way...look out for this weeks Amersham Examiner by the way

[Fran]

Yep, a good article (and photo!) on the front of the Amersham Examiner.

I had a flick through the Bucks Examiner as well, but they didn't seem to mention it at all, which is a shame for those who don't realise there's a difference (we'd lived in Amersham for a year before I realised we were getting the generic version rather than the Amersham-specific one).

Still, it's good that it is being reported, and it seemed a pretty fair account of things.

[struthie]

Nice pic Mark - did you live in Weller Road once upon a time?!

[flyssy]

Nice pic Mark - did you live in Weller Road once upon a time?!

I did..and my Mum still does..