“Radical” new plans for a huge residential development that would include the conversion of a church in Chalfont St Peter have been met with anger.
Dozens of residents have objected to the plans by Gold Hill Baptist Church and Gold Hill Topco Ltd, which could see the church converted into six flats, with 18 properties also being built in the area – seven one-beds, seven two-beds and four three-beds.
Planning permission was granted back in 2018 to knock down extensions to the main church building, alongside converting it into six apartments, and building four houses and two more apartments.
The new plans could see two new mew houses built to the north of the church and four terraced houses to the south of the church, looking over Austenwood Lane, as well as another three-story block of six flats and 32 car parking spaces.
Writing about the apartments in the design and access statement, WaM Architecture wrote: “Within the site the buildings are mainly obscured from the public realm.
“The existing buildings are of poor quality and as part of this revised scheme all these extensions and free-standing buildings are to be demolished.
ALSO READ: Developers submit new plans that would include church being converted into flats
“The proposed scheme creates a more open character to the inner part of the site with extensive landscaping and parking areas for the proposed development.”
They added: “Great care has been taken with the proposed design and material choices for the apartment building.
“It will be an attractive and subservient neighbour to the church. The interior of the site will be greatly improved by the introduction of considerable landscaping, lawn, tree-planting and this modest new building.”
But so far, 24 residents have made their displeasure known, with Mr O Watt writing: “It would create a significant increase of vehicle noise on the site going forward, causing ongoing disturbance for the surrounding dwellings.
“This is over-development of the existing church site.”
And the chairman of the Russetts Residents Association said: “Our main objection is that Austenwood Lane in this location is already a dangerous traffic area and that the proposed development will make it even more hazardous for the many old people and children.
“We are seriously concerned for safety of our residents, many in their 70s and 80s, driving onto Austenwood Lane, and also for parents and children using Austenwood Close to get to and from St Joseph’s School, and for the many children and old people using the pedestrian crossing outside the Rock House Care home.”
They added: “Parking is already a problem in this location and, if this excessive development is allowed, it will get worse and create dangerous situations.”
Jan Jenkins said she is worried about a loss of privacy and light, saying: “This new proposal shows extra housing, including a three-storey block for six flats to be built right up to the boundary of our fence and that of our neighbours.
“This will block out all sunlight in both our gardens and houses at the back.
“The proposed second floor balconies will look directly into our gardens plus our kitchen and bedroom, leaving us without any privacy. Noise levels will also increase.
ALSO READ: Looking back at village site facing huge residential development
“Parking is a huge problem already and, with the increased number of dwellings in this development, this will only add to the problem.
“When we were contacted by the church, we were in agreement with the original plans as it was sympathetic to the surroundings, but the amended plans represents an over-development of the site.”
The plans have also been described as “fairly radical” by people on social media.
Bucks Council is expected to make a decision by July 16. To see the plans in full, visit www.chiltern.gov.uk/viewplanningapplications with reference PL/21/1281/FA.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here