Agenda item

PRELIMINARY REPORT: 24/0476/OUT and PRELIMINARY REPORT: 24/0538/OUT were debated by the Committee at the same time.

Councillors Davies and Hearn left the room at 8.50pm.

For item 12, the Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority have responded and raised no objection, and one further letter of objection had been received.

For item 13, the Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority have responded and raised no objection, and two further letters of objection have been received, one raising concerns at the amount of housing proposed and one raising concerns about the consideration given to Great Crested Newts.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, clarifying that the purpose is to gather concerns and issues from Members, without making decisions that evening. The officer also highlighted the ongoing assessment by the local authority and some consultees, noting the absence of comments from Hertfordshire County Council Highways department and the response from the flood authority, which raised no objections subject to conditions. The officers emphasised the importance of public input and the procedural steps before a decision can be made.

A District Councillor spoke against the application.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the item.

Mr. Finnan spoke against the item.

Mr. Morgan spoke in support of the item.

Members raised concerns regarding the government's upcoming changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), expected in October. They raised questions about how these changes might impact the applications if implemented before their determination. They highlighted that any new national planning policy would serve as a material consideration during the assessment of the application, despite the existing development plan remaining unchanged. Members expressed worry about the potential implications of these changes and anticipated that reports at that time would clarify the differences and their effects on the assessment process.

Members highlighted the busy road between Chorleywood and Chalfont and Latimer, noting its relevance to the discussion. They agreed that scheduling a site visit could provide a clearer picture due to reduced traffic.

The Committee debated the two proposed housing developments in Chorleywood, after several suggestions to discuss both applications at the same time. The debate was focusing on the implications for local infrastructure, particularly schools and traffic. Key points included concerns about the adequacy of local school places, with estimates suggesting a need for new primary and secondary school facilities due to the anticipated increase in population. Traffic issues were also raised, especially regarding road junctions and the impact of additional vehicles during peak times, as well as the nearby bridge, where lorries may not be able to turn the corner. It was suggested that the site visit should be during school drop-off or pick-up times.

The necessity for thorough assessments of the environmental and infrastructural impacts, including the potential strain on local services and the need for improved transport links, was emphasised. Further issues were raised on sewer problems, lack of school places for the new development, and a need for a two-form entry primary school. However, officers advised that Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as education authority have said they didn’t think that the new development would generate sufficient children to require a new primary school.

Members also pointed out that an independent ecology report would be needed to understand the implications of the development, and also mentioned that the impact on the water system needs further investigation due to capacity concerns. They also mentioned potential parking issues.

Members requested that officers follow up with the consultees who have not yet responded.

Mr. Morgan clarified the necessity of a full two-form entry school in relation to their development proposal for a 675 unit scheme. He explained that the proposed school is an over-provision compared to what is required, and highlighted that this has been noted in their submission and the office report. The additional school provision is presented as a public benefit, despite the current 300 unit scheme not necessitating a school as part of its application.

Several Members expressed scepticism about the adequacy of current assessments and the need for further information before making decisions.

RESOLVED:

(1)   That Members agree for officers to arrange a site visit prior to this application being presented to Planning Committee for a decision.

(2) That the Committee notes the report and is invited to make general comments with regard to the material planning issues raised by the application.