County Council Elections - The candidates' views on building on the Green Belt

On May 4th 2017, we will have the opportunity to vote in the election of Councillors to Buckinghamshire County Council.  The BNG Team wrote to all four candidates asking them to answer the following questions:

1. What is your view on the proposal to develop 900 new homes on agricultural Green Belt land to the North-East of Chesham?  (150 word limit)
   
   
2. If you were elected as County Councillor, what would you do and what influence would you try to make to this proposal and why?  (250 word limit)

The BNG Team encourages everyone to get out and vote on May 4th.  The responses to the questions from the candidates listed below may help guide you when deciding where to put your X on polling day.  Please note that the responses are listed in the order received.  

​Thanks to all the candidates for taking the time to respond to our questions.

Mark Shaw - Conservative

What is your view on the proposal to develop 900 new homes on agricultural Green Belt land to the North-East of Chesham?
​
I am and have for all my time as an elected representative been against unsustainable development on Green Belt areas. The area in Lye Green is of no exception. Whilst we need more homes being built in Chesham all brown field areas should be explored before green belt sites are even considered.

If you were elected as County Councillor, what would you do and what influence would you try to make to this proposal and why?
​
If I am lucky enough to be re-elected on May 4th I will continue to pledge my support to the Brown Not Green Group and continue to help and support the group as I have over the last few months. I have led the debate both at Chesham Town Council and County Hall that has led to both authorities expressing their concern about the Lye Green development and I would continue to express those views in the most effective way I can.

I also have shot a campaign video expressing my views.  You can view the video by clicking here.

Frances Kneller - Liberal Democrat

What is your view on the proposal to develop 900 new homes on agricultural Green Belt land to the North-East of Chesham?

                                900 new homes on our precious Green Belt in N.E. Chesham?      No thanks!
​
I love the Chilterns with tranquil, relaxing, green spaces energising and re-invigorating us as we ‘escape to the country’. However, most people recognise we need more homes in our thriving, expanding commuter town.

The local plan for Chesham has been casual and lazy- proposing the development of a large, open area on the edge of town with no existing social, economic and physical infrastructure. Even if there were, the concerns and the lack of support are not about nimbyism. They are about protecting a very special area of Chesham which is threatened irreversibly. This is not scrubby, semi-derelict space ripe for re-development but productive, environmentally diverse land that has been worked and treasured for generations.  Constrained by beauty, not ravaged by convenience, the local plan needs to find places for new homes, this is not it.

If you were elected as County Councillor, what would you do and what influence would you try to make to this proposal and why?
​
The approved Local Plan will set the direction and tone of development for the next 30+ years, so we have to get it right from the outset. This will be complex, challenging and demanding but we need an agreed vision for the future of Chesham that is comprehensive, strategic and deliverable.

More homes of all tenures are needed for Chesham’s changing population. But is this enough? I believe we need to think more radically about a Chesham-wide regeneration plan to maximise brownfield sites before greenfield.  I would want to work across the County and District Councils to develop comprehensive plans that engage and work for the whole community, and are non-partisan.

I would encourage poorly located businesses to move to purpose built industrial sites, earmark the released land for housing and anticipate other benefits -businesses can thrive and grow, reduce the problem of large lorries in narrow roads, improve the air quality in the town centre and provide cleared, central sites for new homes within easy reach of shops and transport links.
​
We need to look at the potential of the smaller, brownfield sites scattered around the town, before we are pushed into developing larger green belt sites on the outskirts. The question is always one of balance. Preserving all that is good about Chesham – its community, its heritage and its natural beauty and diverse environments- much protected as Green Belt, whilst ensuring it remain fit for purpose as a town for and throughout the 21st century.  

Graham Gardner - Labour

What is your view on the proposal to develop 900 new homes on agricultural Green Belt land to the North-East of Chesham?

I’m opposed to this proposal, because it’s too big, in the wrong place and won’t meet local housing needs. Chesham lacks the infrastructure to cope with a development of 900 houses; traffic is already backed up through the town several times a day and Thames water ends up pumping raw sewage into the Chess whenever we have substantial rain. As things stand, those, and other problems, such as high pollution levels, would only get worse if this development goes ahead. Few of the houses will be affordable to those most in need locally, and the development would be too far from the town centre for convenient access to services, as well as losing us valuable open land.
​
If you were elected as County Councillor, what would you do and what influence would you try to make to this proposal and why?

My overriding aim as County Councillor would be to ensure that housing development in and around Chesham is (a) proportionate to local need, (b) within the capacity of the area to sustain it, and (c) not to the detriment of open countryside and prime agricultural land. l would work with all relevant parties, from local residents to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to come up with a viable alternative to the proposal. I would insist on significantly reducing the number of houses proposed for Chesham; 900 is simply too many for it to absorb. I would press for exploring the potential of other areas in Bucks, including brownfield sites, in order to significantly reduce the scale of development in any one location. Housing development should be dispersed so that its impact on local residents and the environment is minimised. I would also pressure the district council to prioritise housing that meets local need rather than simply accommodating overspill from other areas - so I would insist on a high proportion of houses being properly affordable for local people, as a great many residents are priced out of our over-heated housing market. Above and beyond that, I would fight for more investment in local roads, services and amenities from the County Council. This would greatly improve our quality of life and our ability to meet the needs of local residents, both of which are being hugely compromised by the austerity agenda, with or without housing development. 
​

Richard Ness - UKIP

​What is your view on the proposal to develop 900 new homes on agricultural Green Belt land to the North-East of Chesham?
​
These plans are totally unacceptable. We do not have the facilities or infrastructure to cope with 900 more families and the additional 2000 cars that that will entail. The town. being constrained in a small valley will be completed gridlocked. GP surgeries, dentists, schools etc would be overwhelmed. And more of our precious green space being lost. 

If you were elected as County Councillor, what would you do and what influence would you try to make to this proposal and why?

If I was elected as Councillor I would do my utmost to frustrate any progress on this proposal. Unfortunately this has been forced upon our council by the failed government policies in tackling population growth. The only solution is to build complete new towns with all the amenities they require. There are plenty of disused airfields suitable for this purpose.. i.e. the very sensible plans being proposed for the old Haddenham airfield.