Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor A Turner that Councillor J Waters be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Strategic Sites Committee for the ensuing year. This proposal was seconded by Councillor P Fealey and agreed unanimously at a vote.

Resolved:

that Councillor J Waters be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Strategic Sites Committee for the ensuing year 2021-22.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Newcombe and Councillor S Morgan.

Application PL/19/2260/OA

Councillor P Cooper declared that he had received a telephone call from a representative of one of the other motorway service area sites.  The Chairman added that he had also received a similar call and stated he had declined to comment on the application.

Councillor A Wheelhouse declared that she was a member of the Beaconsfield Town Council Planning Committee and Chairman of the Beaconsfield Society; however, neither organisation had commented on the application.

To agree the minutes of the Strategic Sites Committee meetings held on 8 April 2021 and 26 May 2021.

Cllr Nic Brown advised that he was not a member of the Strategic Sites Committee on 8 April 2021 as stated in the minutes; however, it was clarified that the reference to N Brown was Cllr Noel Brown.

Cllr P Cooper also advised that he was not a member of the Strategic Sites Committee but was listed in previous minutes.  However, upon checking, it was noted that Cllr Cooper was only listed on the minutes of the meeting of 26 May 2021 when he was appointed to the Committee. 

Resolved:  The minutes of the Strategic Sites Committee meetings held on 8 April and 26 May 2021 were agreed as an accurate record.

Proposal:  Outline Application, accompanied by an Environmental Statement, for the erection of a Motorway Service Area with all matters reserved with the exception of access from the M25, comprising a facilities building, fuel filling station, electric vehicle charging, up to 100 bedroom hotel, service yard, parking facilities, vehicle circulation, landscaping, woodland and amenity spaces, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)/attenuation, pedestrian and cycle links, retaining structures and associated mitigation, infrastructure and earthworks/enabling works.

Speaking as local members, Councillors Linda Smith, Jonathan Rush and Isobel Darby.

Speaking as representative of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council, Councillor Tony Shinner.

A written statement was read out by the Democratic Services Officer on behalf of Ms Ann Bartaby, who acted for Bickerton’s Aerodromes Limited that owned and operated Denham Airport.

Speaking as an objector, Mr Colin Brown.

Speaking on behalf of the agent, Mr Barry Cansfield.

Following a thorough debate, it was proposed by Cllr P Cooper and seconded by Cllr J Waters and agreed at a vote.

Resolved:  that the Members were ‘minded to refuse’ the application for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal would also have substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, in both spatial and visual terms resulting in substantial erosion of openness, unrestricted sprawl, closing the gap between neighbouring towns and substantial encroachment into the open countryside. Such harm is afforded very substantial negative weight. The proposed development is of a scale and nature on an open green field site which would represent an obtrusion in to open countryside and result in significant adverse landscape character and visual impact on the area of the development site, its immediate setting and the wider area, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed buildings at Mopes Farm and the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the heritage assets. Having regard to the benefits arising from the proposal and the harm to the Green Belt and other harm resulting from the proposal, this harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations. There are therefore no very special circumstances to clearly outweigh this harm. The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS1, CS3 and CS4 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District Adopted 15 November 2011, Policies GB1, GB2, GB30, GC1, LB1 and LB2 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011.

Had the above reason for refusal not applied, it would have been necessary for the applicant and the Local Planning Authority to enter into a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.