32 new homes set to be built despite just three votes in favour

Chiltern District Council's offices in Amersham

Chiltern District Council's offices in Amersham

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

MORE than half the members of a council planning committee abstained from voting as plans for 32 new homes in Amersham moved a step closer to being given permission.

Proposals to build 22 houses, two maisonettes and a block of eight flats on land between the Stanley Hill campus of Amersham and Wycombe College and Lincoln Park had been met with strong opposition from residents.

Chiltern District Council's planning committee raised a number of concerns when they discussed the application on Thursday, August 28.

After being advised that, legally, there were no sufficient grounds to reject the proposals, members voted to go with planning officers' recommendations to give conditional permission subject to a legal agreement being made and a bat survey being carried out.

But five of the 12 committee's members were unable to attend the meeting - and of the seven remaining, only three voted in favour of the proposals and the remaining four refusing to vote.

It was the second time councillors had considered plans to develop the site for housing, having turned down the first application in December.

The council's development control manager Richard Turnbull said property developer Croudace Homes had managed to overcome all 11 of the reasons for refusal committee members came up with on that occasion.

Councillors raised concerns over traffic, saying extra cars parked on the new estate would exacerbate existing gridlock problems caused by parents dropping their children off at the College and the adjacent Amersham School.

Cllr John Gladwin said: "Trying to get across all the traffic coming out of Amersham College is going to be horrendous. It really will be very difficult - people will get very frustrated with that."

Cllr John Wertheim added: "I'm concerned about the safety of this site and about the on-site parking.

"This isn't a car park, this is a residential development."

A hockey club is also looking for a base to build new pitches and had earmarked the site for possible development.

Cllr Pam Appleby, who is not a member of the planning committee but spoke at the meeting, said the housing plans should not be considered until an application for the hockey pitches is submitted.

But Mr Turnbull said each application had to be judged on its own merits and potential submissions for a hockey pitch were not a valid reason for refusing permission to build the new homes.

A total of 39 objections to the plans were received by the council, including from the Amersham Residents Association and the Lincoln Park Residents Association.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:42am Thu 4 Sep 14

MunsterX says...

Democracy at its very best.
Democracy at its very best. MunsterX
  • Score: 4

10:11am Thu 4 Sep 14

BucksComment says...

Unbelievable.... oh wait, no it's not.

Sack the lot of them
Unbelievable.... oh wait, no it's not. Sack the lot of them BucksComment
  • Score: 0

10:21am Thu 4 Sep 14

jayeatman says...

Planning committees are not fit for purpose and should be abolished. They are subject to all sorts of pressures from rabid NIMBYs to corrupt developers. Leave it to the professionals, with proper oversight of course.
Planning committees are not fit for purpose and should be abolished. They are subject to all sorts of pressures from rabid NIMBYs to corrupt developers. Leave it to the professionals, with proper oversight of course. jayeatman
  • Score: 3

10:44am Thu 4 Sep 14

geoffW says...

FIVE of the 12 committee members were unable to attend.

What were the reasons the 5 (42% of the committee) could not attend to do the duty they signed up for?

4 abstained. So why even bother turning up ... unless to claim the expenses.
FIVE of the 12 committee members were unable to attend. What were the reasons the 5 (42% of the committee) could not attend to do the duty they signed up for? 4 abstained. So why even bother turning up ... unless to claim the expenses. geoffW
  • Score: 4

10:47am Thu 4 Sep 14

jayeatman says...

geoffW wrote:
FIVE of the 12 committee members were unable to attend.

What were the reasons the 5 (42% of the committee) could not attend to do the duty they signed up for?

4 abstained. So why even bother turning up ... unless to claim the expenses.
Because they've been told there is no legal reason they can vote against, so either they vote for, abstain or don't turn up. Pointless exercise! Abolish them.
[quote][p][bold]geoffW[/bold] wrote: FIVE of the 12 committee members were unable to attend. What were the reasons the 5 (42% of the committee) could not attend to do the duty they signed up for? 4 abstained. So why even bother turning up ... unless to claim the expenses.[/p][/quote]Because they've been told there is no legal reason they can vote against, so either they vote for, abstain or don't turn up. Pointless exercise! Abolish them. jayeatman
  • Score: 4

11:56am Thu 4 Sep 14

pennman says...

Abstaining is such a gutless thing to do.
Abstaining is such a gutless thing to do. pennman
  • Score: 3

9:15am Fri 5 Sep 14

Matt Ingie says...

Why are they allowed to abstain? What does that achieve?
Why are they allowed to abstain? What does that achieve? Matt Ingie
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Fri 5 Sep 14

I know who I am says...

Says it all really. "Please vote but we wont be listening to you"

Makes the headline earlier in the week (Council asks if they are doing a good job) even more funny
Says it all really. "Please vote but we wont be listening to you" Makes the headline earlier in the week (Council asks if they are doing a good job) even more funny I know who I am
  • Score: 0

12:37am Thu 2 Oct 14

JOHNHEALY says...

Now let me see thirty two homes and the council being left to make a decision about this. Well we knew which way they were going to go didn't we? After all how could they resist 32 lots of council tax for every year in the future!! It is time a shake up occurred and people were put in power who had the interests of locals at heart rather than themselves.
Now let me see thirty two homes and the council being left to make a decision about this. Well we knew which way they were going to go didn't we? After all how could they resist 32 lots of council tax for every year in the future!! It is time a shake up occurred and people were put in power who had the interests of locals at heart rather than themselves. JOHNHEALY
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree