Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or upload here
Controversial Holy Cross plans approved
PLANS to redevelop a former school to form new homes and a care home were approved despite claims villagers had been left with a choice between "death by lethal injection or electrocution".
Previous proposals for a major housing development at the former Holy Cross Convent School in Chalfont St Peter were allowed on appeal, having previously been turned down by Chiltern District Council.
Updated proposals with a reduced number of houses came back before the council's planning committee on Thursday night and were unanimously given approval.
But before the decision was made Chalfont St Peter's UKIP representative David Meacock said villagers and councillors had been left with a choice between two unwanted planning applications.
He said: "I express regret your wisdom [in not approving the first application] wasn't upheld by the appeal inspector, which leaves us with the Death Row prisoner's choice between death by lethal injection or electrocution.
"It doesn't meet the local population's desires."
Cllr Meacock called for the development's sewage infrastructure to be installed before building work on any of the houses began, after saying recent flooding in the village had caused raw sewage to flow through the streets.
He said: "Otherwise we are going to have a health hazard on our hands."
Mindful of the appeal result, the latest plans for 187 new dwellings - of which 35 per cent would be affordable homes - and a 65 bed care home on the site at Gold Hill East were approved despite reservations from committee members.
Cllr John Wertheim said although the latest plans were much better than what had previously been proposed, he questioned why so many houses were in a single cul-de-sac in one corner of the site.
He said: "Over a third of the dwellings are in that area - just imagine 8.30am when they are all going to school. We are going to have a traffic block. I despair of being there that particular time."
He added a play area in the centre of the layout was smaller than the minimum required area for a football pitch and said: "I wonder why they decided to limit it?"
Comments are closed on this article.