It was a packed house at Chesham Town Hall for the Brown Not Green public meeting on Saturday October 14.  Two hundred and fifty attendees managed to squeeze into the crowded room with the majority lining the walls and sitting on the floor.  This was despite having laid out over one hundred chairs.   A further fifty were left straining to hear from the crammed staff kitchen area and corridor.  A few gave up with a view to watch the publicised YouTube video later.   You can read the published Press Release about the meeting here.

​The meeting was chaired by the Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP who was able to give all listening the official view from Government.  This was followed by a thorough update from Phillip Plato, representing the Brown Not Green (BNG) Campaign Group, on the status of the land to the North-East of Chesham that has been earmarked for removal from the Greenbelt.   He then went on to highlight the activities of the Brown Not Green Campaign and what they intend to do next.  A copy of his transcript can be found here.  The slides he used here.

This was followed up by a questions and answers session.  The first question was aimed at MP Cheryl Gillan, asked most poignantly by Phillip Plato,   He asked a question in response to a previous statement from a District Councillor that blamed the Government for the notion that Chiltern District were having to build houses on Greenbelt.  "Who in Central Government is insisting that councils have to build on Greenbelt?"   It was telling that the response was that this was not coming from Government.

Apologies to all those that were not able to get into the Town Hall to attend this meeting.  Despite always seeking larger venues than before for BNG meetings we always seem to need a bigger venue.  The first BNG meeting just under a year ago consisted of barely thirty local residents but as word spreads of how this proposal will affect all of Chesham, not just Lye Green, more people wish to get involved.

The good news is that this presentation was recorded and we expect to publish the YouTube video on this website in the next week or two for those that were unable to attend and those that wish to show the contents of this meeting to their local friends & family and to share on social media.   Watch this space.

In the meantime, please feel free to visit our Fundraising page.  We are fundraising, just in case, we need to take legal action against Chiltern District for wrongful removal of Greenbelt status.  We have a strong case and Chiltern may back down before then.  If funds are not used, all donations will be returned.  Any remaining balance of used funds will be returned on a pro rata basis.  

​Although news updates have been thin in recent months, Brown Not Green (BNG) has been working very hard throughout this year. 
 
We have all been awaiting the Council’s decision to the Green Belt Consultation that was undertaken last year and various dates were rumoured for an announcement, each one superseded by a further delayed announcement date. 
 
We were very optimistic that a decision on the Lye Green Chesham site would be announced in November but just recently a statement has appeared on the Chiltern District Council website suggesting further delays and that the final Draft Local Plan (presumably incorporating the outcome of the Green Belt Consultation last December, would not now be forthcoming until March / April 2018!   See http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/planning/localplan2014-2036
 
As there has been a lot of other work going on behind the scenes BNG felt it was now appropriate to host an Open Meeting in Chesham Town Hall on Sat 14 October at 12.00 noon to update everyone on the machinations behind this long running issue and to raise awareness that the Green Belt around Chesham is still under threat. The meeting will be chaired by the Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP but there will be a detailed presentation made by our local Chartered Planning Surveyor, Phillip Plato before a Q&A session afterwards. 
 
We remain very concerned about the potential for the Chesham site to lose its Green Belt protection and be developed for 900 houses.  Whilst the main landowner has now publicly asserted he will not release the larger area of land necessary for the scale of housing being proposed, it will be explained at the Public Meeting why the site to the North-East of Chesham remains under threat.
 
In summary, we are hoping for the best but must be prepared for the worst. 
 
As such BNG feel they must prepare for a legal challenge to these proposals and at least have funds in place for hiring a specialist planning barrister to provide legal representation to our 1,800 supporters when the Local Plan Inquiry is held possibly sometime in 2018.  We will explain how we plan to do this and if not needed, how funds would be returned to donors.  However, BNG feel we must use this time to be prepared to challenge any decision given the continuing uncertainty surrounding the Council’s proposals that have the potential to adversely affect anyone living or working in Chesham
 
This is because, once the final Draft Local Plan is announced, there is a very strict timetable for making formal submissions and we must be ready.  Accordingly, at the forthcoming Open Meeting on Sat 14 October, we hope to inform the wider community what we have been doing these recent months and we also intend to announce the start of our fundraising campaign for hiring the appropriate professional legal representation when the final Draft Local Plan is released. 
 
Anyone interested in attending is welcome.  Admission is free. We also hope to provide a summary of the meeting on this website in due course if you cannot make that date but please tell all your friends & neighbors to come if you cannot make the date.  If you can help distribute leaflets about this meeting before the 14th Oct please contact BNG via this website and be sure to check back here afterwards for further updates.

The Brown Not Green (BNG) team have spoken to the principle landowner who wishes it to be known that he does NOT support the Council's proposals other than for a much smaller area of housing development on roughly 25% of the site.  He has confirmed he will not sell the rest of the site.  This is confirmed in a recent addition to the Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base on Page 45-46 of the Housing Delivery Study for Buckinghamshire - Wessex Economics (August 2017).  

Aylesbury Vale District Council have agreed to take most of the unmet housing needs from neighbouring Chiltern, raising the question why has this Green Belt proposal not been dropped already.  There is always the threat of a compulsory purchase order (CPO).  This would be a costly and timely exercise for the Council so would not be a preferred route for them to take, however, the threat of a CPO should not be under-estimated.

Chiltern have delayed making any public response on the matter but have launched a Strategic Review of the Green Belt proposals.  BNG are not impressed and are preparing to fund legal representation against the emerging Draft Local Plan and at the Planning Inquiry.  Fund raising details to be announced shortly.

With thanks to Jim Conway of the Chesham Society for directing us to this:

Re:  https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgConsultationDisplay.aspx?ID=3290 

Bucks County Council are holding a consultation around their draft ‘Development Management Policy: Managing the transport and travel impact of new developments'.  The aims of the Policy which confusingly appears to consist of 31 separate (sub)policies is to to make sure that growth happens in the right way. Its policies will inform new developments and ensure they meet Buckinghamshire’s needs. It provides developers with the information they need to prepare successful proposals in Buckinghamshire.  

As Jim describes on the Chesham Society website:  A checklist for developers to follow, to "ensure their residual cumulative (transport) impacts are not severe" - which seems a fairly modest objective.

The Policy states;  Transport Assessments and Statements can be used to establish whether the residual transport impacts of a proposed development are likely to be “severe”, which may be a reason for refusal, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. (p24)

I think this draft policy is good news for us as I cannot see what mitigation could reasonably be put in place that would positively impact Chesham's transport challenges should they decide to build 900 homes on Green Belt Preferred Option #1 to the North East of Chesham.  Any Transport Assessment and Statement saying otherwise should probably be seriously challenged.  

That said I would like to have seen a clause in the Policy that could take retrospective action against developers for empty promises or unforeseen negative traffic & parking impacts that were not forecasted in their Transport Statements and Assessments.  This may help reduce the cavalier approach displayed some of the larger developers who pay lip service to their Statements or make unrealistic assumptions like expecting residents to cycle or walk up Nashleigh Hill or White Hill.

It is worth taking the time to fill out the very short survey.  Not least to tell them how inadequate the survey is to provide feedback on a 31-policy document.  ​The consultation will be open until 25th September 2017 and your responses will contribute to the final draft of the policy which the Council will consider for adoption later in the year.

Congratulations to Mark Shaw on his election win in the County Council elections:

Election results for Chesham, 4 May 2017 - Buckinghamshire County Council

Mark has been a tremendous help and vocal support for us in the BNG Campaign.  We trust that he will continue to support us in his ongoing role as County Councillor.

May we also take this opportunity to thank ALL the candidates for their support in our campaign and though not elected onto the County Council, they still have a massive role to play in our campaign highlighting the pitfalls of building on the Greenbelt around Chesham and failing to address the infrastructure shortfall.

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.

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.

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.  

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. 
​

​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.

Just in case you are struggling to find the motivation to put pen to paper and write to your local Councillors and MPS, take note of this success story.

John Parsons from Lye Green recently took the time to write to the Rt Hon Cheryl Gillian MP.  She in turn wrote specifically about Lye Green to the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP (The Housing Minister) on behalf of John Parsons.  

You can read both the MP's responses here:  CLICK HERE.

This is very encouraging, so I would urge you all to write to the Rt Hon Cheryl Gillian MP and follow it up by sending a copy of your letter and response to Chiltern District Council.  

​Full instructions can be found here:  How to Lobby - Brown Not Green

The Government, in February 2017, released a Housing White paper entitled:  "Fixing our broken housing market".  The fully copy of the White Paper can be found here.

​To save you trawling through the whole White Paper, Philip Plato has done this already for us picking out the key points that affect the Brown Not Green Campaign.  When quoting the White Paper in your letters to councillors (See How to Lobby - Brown Not Green) it may help you to quote some of the following key elements of the White Paper.  Philip’s words are in italics and he uses bold format to emphasise key statements.

1. There has been a lot of talk about these new proposals possibly involving wide scale release of Green Belt land but I was pleased to note in the 6th bullet point in the summary of the Chapter entitled Planning for Right Homes in the Right Places, it states new policies will:

“...maintain existing strong protections for the Green Belt, and clarify that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements;”

       Great!
 
2.Bringing Brownfield land back into use is also a highlighted aspiration too.  Interestingly great emphasis is placed on standardising the Needs Assessment for Housing in Local Plans and that the Govt will:


“make clear that on top of the allowance made for windfall sites, at least 10% of the sites allocated for residential development in local plans should be sites of half a hectare or less;”
 
3.There seems to be an attempt to define “exceptional circumstances” for modifying Green Belt Boundaries.  In Para 1.39:
 
“Therefore we propose to amend and add to national policy to make clear that:
 
• authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including:
 
– making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration;
– the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate;
– optimising the proposed density of development; and
– exploring whether other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development requirement.
 
• and where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. We will also explore whether higher contributions can be collected from development as a consequence of land being released from the Green Belt.
 
I see all this as mixed news.  Personally, I welcome the affirmation of Brownfield first & the re-emphasis that Green Belt is still only released in exceptional circumstances.  I also generally welcome the attempt to define exceptional circumstances but as always the generalised nature of White Papers still leaves some ambiguity. 
 
 Philip Plato.  7/2/2017