Bucks Council planning officers described the proposal as a ‘significant’ and ‘substantial development’.
It stated: “221 residents’ objections have been received in relation to this screening request.”
In a letter to the council, developers had stated that the proposed development on agricultural land ‘would not have significant effects on the environment’.
It was a formal request to have a screening opinion on whether the proposal for Land West of Bull Lane requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
READ MORE: Gerrards Cross 485 home request to avoid environmental check | Bucks Free Press
An EIA is a process used in planning to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposed development.
The assessments are not mandatory for all proposals.
The council stated: “Some of the impacts identified from the development would be ‘significant’ such as to warrant the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement alongside any planning application.”
In a letter, planning officers described the site.
It said: “The application site is located off the north side of Oxford Road (A40), near Gerrards Cross and includes some 22.4 hectares.
“The site currently comprises agricultural fields which fall within the designated Green Belt, Colne Valley Regional Park and Burnham Beeches SAC 5.6km buffer.
“The site has scattered areas of high and medium surface water flood risk.”
The officers said the development would be ‘substantial’, and would result in ‘substantial hedgerow and tree removal’.
READ MORE: Sainsbury’s High Wycombe aggressive begging probe underway | Bucks Free Press
They stated: “The proposed development will generate employment opportunities (both in construction and once operational).
“The future occupiers of the proposed development would also increase the amount of expenditure in the local area.
” This would have a positive local economic effect.”
Concerns raised by residents included environmental concerns about protected species, flood risks, an alteration to the town’s ‘rural character’ and a threat to the separation between Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield.
Additional issues described in objections included schools being oversubscribed, GP surgeries and dentists having long waiting times, roads being congested and poorly maintained, loss of open space and scenic views, concerns about property devaluation and reduced quality of life.and no plans for new amenities to support the increased population.
They also stated ‘Bull Lane is narrow, lacks pavements, and is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists’, ‘increased traffic would worsen congestion, pollution, and accident risk’, and ‘junctions with A40 and Bulstrode Way are already problematic’.