East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 9 December 2025, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 9th December 2025 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Mrs Liz Hornby
  2. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Salman Azad
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  4. Mr Ben Robinson
  5. Salman Azad
  6. Cllr David Moore
  7. Salman Azad
  8. Cllr Cole Caesar
  9. Salman Azad
  10. Cllr Cole Caesar
  11. Mr Ben Robinson
  12. Cllr David Moore
  13. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  14. Mr Ben Robinson
  15. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  16. Mr Ben Robinson
  17. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  18. Cllr David Moore
  19. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  20. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Richard Regan
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Public Speaker - Supporter
  4. Cllr David Moore
  5. Public Speaker - Supporter
  6. Cllr David Moore
  7. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  8. Public Speaker - Supporter
  9. Cllr David Moore
  10. Mr Richard Regan
  11. Cllr David Moore
  12. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  13. Mr Ben Robinson
  14. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  15. Mr Ben Robinson
  16. Mr Richard Regan
  17. Cllr David Moore
  18. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  19. Cllr David Moore
  20. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  21. Cllr David Moore
  22. Cllr Matthew Hind
  23. Cllr David Moore
  24. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  25. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Thank you. Thank you very much. Well a very good evening ladies and gentlemen
and welcome to the Eastern South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee.
Cllr David Moore - 0:00:09
It's really good that we're all here today. There was a fire opposite in the
in the town hall which thanks to our hard -working firefighters prevented and
is now safe so it's all good to see we could continue with the meeting so our
thanks go to the fire services who are so important to Buckinghamshire. So before
Before we start the agenda, we have a couple of housekeeping items.
For your information, this meeting is being webcast.
By entering the room, you have consented to be filmed.
However, if members of the public do not want their image to be captured, please advise
the committee clerk and we will help to sit you in a place where you will not be filmed.
The fire exits are located at the back of the chamber, down the main stairs, now to
the front doors.
Please follow me and we will congregate outside in the space located over the bridge towards
the roundabout. So without further ado we go to the first item of the agenda which

1 Apologies for absence

is apologies for absence. Thank You Chairman yes we have apologies from
Mrs Liz Hornby - 0:01:05
councillors Faiyaz, Gryphon, Kelly and Roberts and we have councillors Hind and
Nella who are substituting. Thank you very much Liz and I understand
Cllr David Moore - 0:01:16
councillor Hogg will be joining us 15 minutes later but as per the rules anyone
who joins when the officers report starts cannot vote on that item. So we

2 Declarations of interest

Now move to Agenda Item 2, which is declarations of interest.
Does anyone would like to make any declaration on the items?
Thank you very much. We move to the next item.
May I have your approval to sign off the minutes of the previous meeting

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

held on the 11th of November?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks.
Thank you.
We now move to our first item
of the agenda in terms of applications,

Planning Applications

which is agenda item four,

4 PL/25/0145/FA - Xcard Ltd, 2 Oxford Road, New Denham, Denham, UB9 4DQ

PL250145FA X -Card Limited,
two Oxford Road, new Denham Denham,
UB94DQ.
I'm now gonna hand over to Salman Azad,
who is going to introduce the item.
Thank you very much.
Salman Azad - 0:02:16
Thank you, Chair. The proposal seeks to change the use of a
Grade 2 -star listed building from a restaurant, Class C, to two residential flats, Class C3.
The works include internal alterations and replacing an external door with a window.
The proposed change of use is considered consistent with local development plan policies and the
planning policy framework as it represents an effective use of land. It
is noted that the ground floor has remained vacant for over five years and
the applicant has provided evidence of a comprehensive marketing campaign
throughout this period demonstrating sustained efforts to lease the property
under its current lawful use. Despite these efforts there have been no
meaningful interest indicating that the existing use is not viable. The proposal
which primarily involves internal iterations to the listed building is
regarded as being compliant with the relevant local policies and the national
planning policy framework and is supported by the council's heritage team
and highways team. The application has been referred to the South and East
Buckinghamshire Planning Committee following a calling request by three
members Councillors Bracken, Broome and Choker.
So since we shared the officer's report there have been a few updates that the committee
should know about.
Firstly Denham Parish Council have now withdrawn their support for a calling after communicating
with the councillors.
Secondly if conditional permission is granted suggested condition 2 which relates to material
has been amended and the requirement to submit details of internal materials has been removed
as this is addressed under the separate listed building consent application.
This condition now reads as no works of development shall take place until details
slash samples of all new external materials to be used in the development
hereby permitted have been submitted to and improved by the local authority in
writing. Thereafter the work shall be implemented in accordance with these
approved details. Lastly suggested condition 4 which require the applicant
to report any structural defects once the structure was exposed during works, has been
removed as it falls outside the scope of the planning permission and is addressed under
the separate listed building consent application.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the application site, it is located at the south
east end of a parade of shopping and other commercial premises set back from the north
east side of Oxford Road.
Numbers 2 to 12 Oxford Road are Grade 2 stylist buildings. Number 2 Oxford Road
is the part of the building which flanks onto Willow Avenue. The building has been
used for various commercial purposes historically including a car showroom
and for the production of plastic cards. The second floor consists of residential
floor space and permission was granted in 2007 for the insertion of a mezzanine
floor to create a first floor flat. Numbers 4 to 10 Oxford Road appear to be
residential flats which are accessed by a ground floor door in the centres on
the centre of number two and number 12. Number 12 Oxford Road is a restaurant.
The application site falls within the National Flats Zone 2 and 3, an
archeological site, Cone Valley Park, Uxbridge Lock conservation area and is
adjacent to the green belts. Now looking at the existing and proposed
elevations of the building we can see that the external alterations are
limited to replace an external door on the building's north elevation with a
window. For everyone's even ease of reference I've annotated this change
with a red arrow.
Now looking at the floor plans we can see that the internal alterations
consists of internal partitions, fixtures and fittings to create two residential
flats. Regarding the upper floors of the building they will remain as is and will
continue to be used for the existing lawful residential use. Regarding parking
the site is within the residential zone C under Buckinghamshire countywide
parking guidance. The existing Class C use requires 13 .1 spaces but has no
private parking relying on a nearby public spaces and operating with a 13
space shortfall. The proposed change introduces two residential units with
each unit requiring two spaces.
The submitted plans show that three bays will be provided,
two leased long -term from Denham Lodge
and one within the applicant's frontage.
This reduces the site's parking shortfall
from 13 spaces to one.
The Council's Highway Officer notes
that the proposal improves parking provisions
compared to the existing use, reduces vehicle movements,
and mirrors access arrangements for existing up -floor units.
No objection is raised and the scheme is considered
acceptable with no parking or highway safety concerns. Therefore to conclude
the proposed change of views aligns with the South Bucks local development plan
and the national planning policy framework as it represents an effective
use of land. It is noted that the ground floor has remained vacant for over five
years. The proposal which primarily involves
internal alterations to the listed building is considered compliant with
relevant local policies and the framework and has the support of the
council's heritage team meanwhile the highways team have confirmed that the
impact on parking and highway safety is acceptable accordingly officers
recommendation is to grant conditional permission subject to the conditions
outlined in the officers report with an amendment to condition to and the
removal of condition for thank you thank you salmon for your report as there are
Cllr David Moore - 0:08:17
no speakers on this item we go straight to the technical questions to the
officers so does anyone like to kick us off council waters and Thank You
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:08:25
chairman I have a couple of questions the parking space at the front of the
building where they have to come out and see there's an entrance way to how is
Is that going to be clearly able to be marked out
so that the people using the shopping area,
the rest of the shopping area,
aren't just going to use that?
Because actually, while we were there,
other people were using it to park on.
So currently it's being used by people just pulling up
and parking on the side.
So I know the parking is fine in terms of the numbers,
but it'd be quite good to know that.
The other, do you want to answer that?
I've got two other questions.
What's really important with this site as well is the marketing that's taken place over
a five year period and how robust that is.
Could you talk through what they've actually done and the evidence they've produced to
show that it has, they have actually done that meaningfully so, so that this change
is not, you know, as you sometimes get trying to make a change, but they haven't really
and you had picked up as well in terms of the windows changed at the front and the door
at the side, that that would be looked at in terms of materials by heritage, is that
correct? That one I think is answered, but the other two really.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:09:57
If I do with a parking question, the parking is on private land, so the applicant would
be able to enforce any unauthorised parking on that.
So a bit like any private parking on private land, they would be able to prevent unauthorised
parking.
I'll hand over to Salman with regards to the marketing
Salman Azad - 0:10:20
Yeah, sorry council waters
Um, just going back on the topic of parking when we went on our visit yesterday the car that was parked was parked on
It's it's not the same parking spot as what they're detailing here
It was the entrance point to the parking space actually using the parking space
if that carried on that parking space wouldn't be that usable on what looks like something which is
consistent pavement with the rest of the area. Oh okay no my apologies yet. So in regards to the
marketing they've actually submitted a very robust evidence of marketing statement which goes on for
21 pages and effectively what they've done is they've shown in detail that the ground floor
commercial unit has been continuously vacant since March 2020. So they've
provided within the marketing statement a historic use timeline from 1990 all
the way up to March 2020. That's when it was last used as an artisan bakery and a
speciality food shop. Since that time it's been vacant. They've detailed exactly
why it was vacant, citing changing business practises as well as COVID -19
impact. Since that time, looking at the continuous vacancy period, they've gone
into detail from March 2020 to April 2025 what marketing efforts they've done.
So just to go through, in March 2020 the previous tenants ceased trading and
the lease. In that time in March 2021 the asking rent was reduced by 15 % to
stimulate interest. This was further reduced by another 10 % in February 2022
and they went and appointed local as well as national agents to extend the
market reach. They did direct marketing to potential occupiers in complementary
sectors. They've even explored in February 2024 the use of pop -up and temporary uses.
And November 2024, they did a final marketing push with an enhanced incentive package. And
in April 2025, they did a decision to pursue a change of use following exhaustive marketing
efforts.
Now, in terms of what they've said is the submitted market statement sets out despite
So they've done competitive pricing,
reductions in pricing up to 31 % reductions
and asking rent against initial asking.
They've even looked at flexibility of terms and,
sorry, just one second.
And they've even provided a marketing response analysis
where there was a moderate level of interest,
initial interest, reflecting the properties
of visibility to the market.
So they've done a breakdown of the inquiry statistics
as well.
There was initial inquiries about 12 in April 2020
to March 2021.
In April 2021 to March 2022, there was 18 inquiries,
initial inquiries.
This decreased to 15 between April 2022 and March 2023
And it kept on decreasing further and further from nine to seven so altogether in that five -year period there's been
67 there have been 61 initial inquiries
however
The viewings arranged was only 12 and the officer received was zero
Just to build on what council was saying on viability
Cllr David Moore - 0:14:20
It says in the report here the continuation of non -viable use within the ground floor could lead to deterioration of the grade two building
Is it my understanding that you've suggested you in your report?
You're saying that if it continues to be in its current form, it would deteriorate the building but being residential change of use it would
Yes, so so effectively
Salman Azad - 0:14:40
in terms of the PPG the planning practise card is it talks about how a
Lot of these listed buildings are in private ownership and we should incentivize it so that they are used for optimum use
Okay, thank you cancer Caesar you had your hand up
Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:14:56
Yeah, thank you much chairman. Um, obviously me being in property itself. I
Understand the 61 inquiries and few viewings was 12
But surely this they looked at any other ideas of potentially decorating it
Is there something in that report is there issues with the actual inside because I?
12 viewings. I know not everyone wants a great ad
sorry, any listing property regarding a restaurant,
but surely 12 viewings and no offers at least.
I would think that maybe there's something wrong
with the actual property inside.
Is there anything linked into that report on that?
Well, the main sort of property -specific limitation here
Salman Azad - 0:15:32
is that the fact it is a Grade 2 -star listed building.
So in terms of modernization, it's very difficult to do.
In terms of, you know, being facilitated for certain uses
It makes it extremely difficult.
So for example, when they did do their market assessment,
they did look at, for example,
using it for other classy uses.
And it just wasn't viable in the sense that, for example,
to give an example, a nursery, using it as nursery,
the space is too small.
Other people have talked about the lack of parking
along that area.
And also another issue is that in terms of the economic viability concerns, as in like
nine out of 12 viewers talked about the projected football being insufficient to support a business
model there.
Can I put on that, Jem, if that's OK?
Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:16:28
Wouldn't it – I mean, I'm not experienced in this, so this is your advice, but wouldn't
it be viable potentially to look at the second option if that's not the case, is potentially
put an application in to improve that as a restaurant?
I know it's a grade two,
but I have seen applications go through
and if it's reasonable, they do accept them near enough.
It wouldn't need planning permission
to change use to a restaurant.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:16:50
Yeah, is there a way that that could have been done before?
It could have been, but I suppose it's in a Class E use
which covers a raft of different potential uses.
So when it was marketed for use,
it was marketed as a Class E use.
So that would have meant that any potential user
would have been aware of the potential uses
that they could make from it.
Having lots of importance to emphasise
is that it's a great, too stylistic building.
It's been empty for five years.
As Salman has set out, the PPG does encourage
the optimal viable use of these properties.
If we were to refuse permission,
the potential is that the property
could remain vacant for another significant period of time,
which could lead to deterioration of the building.
So essentially we want to give weight to the benefits
of bringing it into a use that is viable.
Generally speaking, a residential property
would give the incentive for the continued maintenance
of the building in the longer term,
such that it would preserve as a heritage asset.
And I've just interject there. Remind members the importance of attending site
Cllr David Moore - 0:18:05
visits because you actually get to see the building and to see the grade two in
person. It was very useful actually yesterday and we actually saw a bit of
the inside as well and there was, in my view at least, there was a deterioration
despite that five years. But does anyone have any more questions for our officers?
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:18:25
Thank you and apologies for not being able to attend the site visit. I had a
I can well imagine that the lack of parking provision would put off a lot of
potential applicants for this property. My question, your first comment was that
Denham Parish Council have withdrawn their request for a call in following a
conversation with council as obviously we don't know the context of that
conversation but I just wanted to cheque that the council is you'd consulted with
them to say they wanted to maintain the calling because none of them are here to
speak to the call in so I just wanted to cheque because having gone through the
report I think you deal with a lot of the issues around the reasons for
calling and I'm just curious as to what the sequence of events is if the parish
council spoken to the people who've called it in and they've decided not to
proceed the call in then why we here we the officer about to the all the members
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:19:26
who called it in and to the parish just to explain.
The recommendation was for approval
and the reasons for the recommendation,
but the callings weren't withdrawn,
so we had to get on and get it on the agenda for committee.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:19:44
Did we challenge that they had material planning reasons
as is required by the constitution to sustain the calling?
Planning, material planning reasons were given
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:19:51
by this sufficient number of the members
to trigger the automatic calling.
So it's the way that the constitution's written
is if they provide material planning reasons,
there isn't, we as officers are unable to say
that they're not sufficient material planning reasons
to prevent the automatic process taking place.
I was an architect of that constitutional change,
so I'm very familiar with it.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:20:18
So, but I would have thought under the circumstances
of not one of the three being here to speak to it,
to call in for the ward, I think is interesting.
Thank you very much.
If I might add, I think there are obviously
Cllr David Moore - 0:20:34
both applications I appreciate are in the same ward,
but we also have times where people can't make meetings
and also the importance of scrutiny, so yes.
But we'll move on.
If we don't have any more questions,
the officers, do we have any more?
Okay, well, I think we'll move to the debate.
Does any member like to start us off on this?
have any particular views on this application? Councillor Wilson? I don't I
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:21:00
agree with the officers recommendation and I will propose we move to vote to
approve. I'll second that well I certainly share that view as well while
members I think we have a motion on the floor so all in favour
Do
Well, we'll go straight to vote all in favour of this application
Any against
Any abstentions technically me
And obviously council Haughton house Caesar's sad you can't vote on this item that's carried. Thank you
We now move to the next item on the agenda which is agenda item 5 PL slash

5 PL/25/2234/FA - The White House, Lower Road, Gerrards Cross, SL9 8LG

Cllr David Moore - 0:21:45
2 5 slash 2 2 3 4 slash FA the White House layer Road Gerald's Cross SL 9 8
LG I now hand over to Richard Regan who will introduce the item thank you very
Mr Richard Regan - 0:21:59
much. Thank you chairman. This application seeks planning permission for the
demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of four detached dwellings.
This application follows a previously refused application
which proposed the erection of six dwellings. That application
was refused on the grounds that it would have resulted in a
much denser form of development that was typical of locality
and failed to be sympathetic to the existing character of the
area. It was also refused on the grounds that a planning
obligation to secure the necessary contribution towards the
in Beaches mitigation strategy had not been completed.
So in terms of this site itself,
it's located within the developed area of Gerald's Cross.
You'll see the plan that's in front of you,
the site's outlined in red.
Very large plots, currently we have one detached dwelling
accessed from Lower Road.
You'll note dwellings to the north, including a presence of some semi -detached properties
and then various other plots with detached dwellings within them.
In terms of looking briefly at the previously refuged scheme, that scheme proposed the demolition
of the existing and the erection of six dwellings which took the form of two detached dwellings
here at the rear of the site and then two pairs of semis at the front.
No objections were raised in terms of the sightings of the buildings and no objections
were raised in terms of their appearance or their height. No objections were
raised in terms of the impact on the amenities of neighbouring property. It was
considered that the parking provision was adequate to serve the six dwellings.
The manoeuvrability of vehicles also considered acceptable and no
objections were raised in terms of the scheme's impact on the adjacent
conservation area on existing trees on ecology drainage or provision storage
and collection of of waste the concerns that the council did have and members
raised related to the actual number of dwellings that was being proposed and
the resultant density and size of the plots specifically the pair of semis
here at the front of the site,
as they were considered to be narrow and small ports
that were out of keeping for the locality.
So we move to the current scheme that's before you.
The layout of the scheme remains the same
as per that previous scheme,
so it takes the access from Lower Road,
Parking provision for the units at the front here
with two carports either side.
An access road that extends to the rear
between the two front buildings
to the two dwellings at the rear.
So the two dwellings here at the end
are two detached dwellings and they remain the same
as per the previous scheme.
And the major difference here is these two buildings
whilst the buildings themselves
are physically externally the same.
They are now two single detached dwellings
as opposed to two pairs of semi -detached dwellings.
And you'll note obviously the plot sizes
and the rear gardens are larger than that refused scheme.
And the resultant reduction in density that also occurs.
In terms of context of the site with the immediate locality, this is your site here, there's
a red line around it, the four dwellings in terms of comparing that to neighbouring properties,
you have properties here to the north, semi -detached properties, various single detached properties
to the south, including more recent redevelopments of plots down here to the
south, but also acknowledging also there was a mixture and there are sites that
are set on larger plots. In terms of the built form itself, plots one and two are
the same and they are physically almost the same as what was previously proposed
albeit internally, they've been altered so they are now detached single dwellings rather than
semis and the only external difference is on the flank elevations there is one additional
small first floor window on each flank which serves a dressing room
and in terms of the impact of that go back to the site plan so those additional windows would be
one here and one in this flank.
Officer's view is that serves a dressing room
and that can be conditioned to be obscurely glazed
and if there were any openers,
they would be restricted to high level.
In terms of the properties at the rear,
three and four, again, are the same
and they are identical to that
that was previously proposed in the previous scheme.
and at the front of the site as I pointed out a moment ago there will be
two carports serving those two properties at the front.
The current proposal whilst involving the same number of separate buildings in
the same locations that previously proposed due to the two buildings at the
front of the site being single detached dwellings as opposed to two pairs of
70 detached dwellings, the result of that is the density
of the scheme drops to 17 dwellings per hectare.
In terms of a density figure, this is more comparable
to the density of existing properties
within the surrounding area.
In addition to this, this reduction in density
also results in a reduction in number of dwellings.
This is allowed for the provision
of entirely detached dwellings within the site,
which is the prevailing type of house within the locality.
This has also resulted in the plot sizes
and rear gardens to increase in size
and now appear comparable to other properties.
The scale of development within each plot
is also now more representative
of that found elsewhere within the vicinity.
Overall, it is considered that the current proposals
overcome the council's previous concerns
and the development does reflect the prevailing density
and characteristics of the immediate and wider locality,
and therefore does not adversely impact
upon the character and appearance of the sites
or locality in general.
It is your officer's opinion, therefore,
that subject to the completion of a planning obligation
to secure the relevant financial contribution
towards Burnham Beach's mitigation strategy,
that the proposal would provide
for a sustainable form of development
that meets the requirements of the MPBF
and the relevant development plan policies
and should be granted planning permission
subject to the conditions set out within this report.
Thank you Chairman.
Thank you Richard.
Cllr David Moore - 0:29:54
We now move to our first and only speaker of tonight,
who is Mr. Mark Longworth of DP Architects,
who is representing the application as the agents.
You have three minutes, the green says you may start,
amber means 30 seconds, and red means your time is up.
You may start when ready, thank you.
Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:30:10
Good evening.
DP Architects appear to have been given a residency at Planning Committee, so it's good to see you all again.
This brownfield site abuts other recently developed sites, such as the DPA scheme for four units under construction in the conservation area to the immediate north at Shirley Home, which is 4 South Park Drive.
And a number of years ago, the four dwellings replacing one dwelling to the immediate east at 14 South Park Drive.
This application, as noted, is an application for the development in a sustainable location within walking distance of the station,
and the principle of redevelopment has already been accepted at Planning Committee,
and permitting this scheme will assist the Council in addressing their terrible housing land supply figures.
For this application, we have listened to what the January Planning Committee requested,
which was a reduction in the dwelling numbers to reduce the parking requirements easing site constraints after
relistening to the January Planning Committee webcast as noted in paragraph
4 .13 of this committee report
The January Planning Committee did not find issue with design positioning massing or relationship with neighbours dwellings
The debate was solely related to the number of dwellings per hectare and the car number of cars and parking achieved
This committee report notes that the review scheme has a density of 26 dwellings per hectare, this new scheme has a density of 17 dwellings per hectare.
If the officer can show the site context drawing again, the comparison, this proposal now has a lower density than most of the recently permitted schemes in the area.
17 South Park View has a density of 27 dwellings per hectare, 40 dwellings per hectare at Scholars
Place, 31 dwellings per hectare at South Park View, 23 dwellings per hectare at South Park
Drive and 25 dwellings per hectare at 17 South Park Crescent.
In summary, we've listened to the Planning Committee and have given you what you've requested,
a development at a lower density than neighbouring developments, making the best use of land
in an area where the council cannot meet the housing and supply requirements.
Thank you.
Cllr David Moore - 0:32:25
Thank you very much, Mr Longworth.
I'm going to go straight into a question.
If I may, Mr Longworth, I was there at the original when your original application came
in back in January.
You have said obviously that these four dwellings are a reduction of development of the hectares.
Why in your view is this not an overdevelopment when the town council who have objected have
said that this is still an overdevelopment,
comparing it to the surrounding roads.
What's your rationale there?
Thank you.
I think you should have a look at some
Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:32:54
of the other developments within South Park View,
Scholars Place, which are all quite dense.
However, the applicant didn't want to go for flats,
which there have been a number of flatted developments
along Lower Road, and also in South Park View.
So it's a balancing act to deal with the character of the area on there and knowing that it is
a large site, it's capable of accommodating more dwellings. When you've accepted four
dwellings in the back garden of a heritage asset in a conservation area, it's surely
home, I think this is a proportionate development for the area.
Cllr David Moore - 0:33:41
Thank you. Any other questions to Mr Longworth? Thank you very much for your time. Oh sorry,
Councillor Holt.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:33:49
In the report that we've received from officers, it talks about the importance of the national
planning policy framework at paragraph 135, the importance of new developments, adding
to the character of an area, not just being part of it but actually improving
it and being visually attractive, a point that it makes multiple times. Why
would you say that this is, these are visually attractive, this is a visually
Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:34:28
attractive development? I think if you look at the development as it stands at
the moment, it doesn't really have a presence on the street scene, it then has a large garage
at high level in front of the house, which also impacts on the neighbouring properties.
This has the potential to open up the site and to give views through the site to the
tree lines at the top of the hill, and of course we've got a public footpath that runs
along the side and that's the massing is very carefully set down at the top of the site
so we've got more shallow style houses and the houses are actually also tiered to set
in with the ground level so they're actually dug in reducing the massing compared to the
existing house so it's been carefully designed to work within the topography of the site,
allow views through the site to the conservation area and removes a large bulky garage which
is very close to the road frontage at the moment.
Cllr David Moore - 0:35:30
Thank you very much. Well if there's no more questions thank you very much for
your time Mr. Longworth. We now move to technical questions for the officers.
Would anyone like to ask any questions to the officers on this application? I'm
gonna go straight in again following my question to Mr. Longworth. Obviously the
town council said this for dwellings is still an over development. What is your
rationale in your view that this is now appropriate considering the previous
refusal and why and what policies they comply with thank you I mean I think I
Mr Richard Regan - 0:36:06
think it's set out within within the report in terms of the officers
assessment and view on the scheme it's it's considered that the level of
development now being proposed, it's comparable to the surrounding area. It's
not out of keeping, it's making efficient use of a brownfield site and
you know it's going to contribute to the council's five -year housing land supply
and this is a scheme that officers feel that would enhance the visual
amenities of the site over that that currently exists. Thank you. Any other
Cllr David Moore - 0:36:52
questions for the officers? We'll move straight to the debate then. Thank you
very much. Anyone like to share their views on this application? Councillor
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:37:05
Hogg, I saw you. Oh, go on, go on. I'm just looking for a bit more clarity on
paragraph 135 of the MPPF about the visually attractive nature and
how it all fits together because it's just so vague.
I mean, the sides of these buildings,
you've got one window not centred off to the side
and then another tiny window next to it.
It's not.
That doesn't, that's not visually attractive.
But that's just an opinion that I have
and I want to understand what the parameters are.
It is a matter of judgement.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:37:45
So what's visually attractive in this case, the officer's assessment in the report,
saying that he does consider it to be acceptable in terms of the character of the area and
it would make an improvement to the street scene.
As the applicant's agent has set out currently, if you visit the site you'll see there's
large outbuilding at the front of the site which doesn't present itself particularly
well in the street scene. Actually by providing two detached dwellings to the front of the
site you're providing an active frontage to the street scene which would be a much more
attractive basis for when you're travelling along the road you will now see properly frontages
of the dwellings and they've been designed in a way which is building character with
what you see in the locality.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:38:46
So just to follow up a little bit off to the side, the character of the area, how are you
defining that? What are you comparing it to?
The other development in the area.
Sure, but there's lots of different types of styles. If you look at the traditional
style in Gerard's Cross is beautiful, sort of 17th, 18th, sometimes 19th century, then
you get into the not so nice postmodernist stuff of the latter 20th century. What are
you referring to?
Well, there's a mixture of styles in the area.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:39:19
Yeah, exactly. What is the character?
Well, there isn't a defined style. I'll hand over to the case officer. We do have the landscape
character assessment that we can refer to so we which can be helpful in writing
a bit of context to the character of the area so yeah I mean the townscape
Mr Richard Regan - 0:39:44
character defines this area as green suburban which is you sets out that the
landscape is generally detached dwellings in good -sized plots. There's the presence
of vegetation and natural landscaping and there's a level of consistency in terms of
how the dwellings are set out and sited. But in terms of looking at more detail in terms
of the vernacular of built form, then that is very much mixed in this area. So there
there isn't a particular type of building or design
that is problem and that you would seek to follow.
Its character is mixed and therefore it's considered
that the design of the dwelling is put forward
in this scheme would fit into that mixed character.
Thank you, Councillor Hawke.
And I think it's very important to raise design,
Cllr David Moore - 0:40:49
actually, I will say.
but I think Gerald's Cross is a really unique,
I think everyone would agree,
design setting with lots of beautiful arts and crafts,
blended with a bit of art deco as well,
and so it's really important though to raise design.
It's very important we hold a very high standard
according to the policies.
Councillor Waters.
I'm moving on to the debate if you're ready.
Yes, of course, please do.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:41:12
Okay, I'll pick up the first point.
Having gone to the site visit,
I also drove around the area as well
because I think that's useful to do
to get a real feel of the mix. It's not an area which has, I think you're talking about
distinctive, it's an area with a whole range of different periods of building and quite
a lot quite recently. This particular house, I think as the officer was saying, has this
absolutely massive garage at the front of it where it slopes down in front of the house.
the houses of a period, which you probably would say wasn't great in design actually,
so that isn't actually making a particular statement. I think in terms of this being a
negative in comparison what is there, this would be positive and the fronts of obviously side
elevations where there's little windows and things are quite standard, the fronts of these ones look
quite balanced to me. I don't see them not being balanced. I think what is good is that
the applicant has listened to the previous committee, has looked at the density and you
now have the removal of the semi -detached houses and detached houses, though there are
quite a few semis around. The detached house gives a bit more space and the garden space
is the key thing that comes with that, not the small narrow gardens that were sitting
there before. Are they large gardens? No, if they were in the Chiltern District Plan
they wouldn't have made it if that was still applicable today because that needs 15 metres.
But in the old South Bucks District Council it doesn't have any of that so those things
are different so you're not able to quite say those things. I felt that was better.
By actually changing it to detached houses you actually reduce the amount of traffic
to the site because you're cutting out two of the dwellings so that actually makes that
congestion less. One of the questions which is not great is that the bins will be having
to be taken to the highway and I don't see any place on the side of the highway for those
bins to be placed on collection day unless you're going to put them in the road itself,
which isn't great for an entrance. So overall I think there has to be movement and I would
be supporting that we should be voting in favour of the application as per the
recommendation but I'll leave it to the people who want to debate. Thank you
Councillor Waters. Would anyone like to add to that Councillor Holt?
Cllr David Moore - 0:43:44
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:43:47
We have been trained very well that the way we go about these is that the
decision is tilted in favour by default to approval and then one takes into account the
lack of housing that we've got and one takes into account that this is that there is a strong case
for improving the character of the area based on that rather nasty garage and it all in all
Looks to me like this is a good one to approve
Thank You councillor hogg
Cllr David Moore - 0:44:33
Everyone else like to add to that
Yes, councillor hine
This is a
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:44:40
1980s house that wasn't pretty in any stretch the imagination of
The garage just added to its lack of prettiness
to be replaced by four, probably not much prettier
places at all, but three more houses.
And the back of the property is just grassland left,
hadn't been done to it for years it looks like.
So I think the new will be better than the old, in my view.
Thank you very much.
And as someone on the previous committee,
Cllr David Moore - 0:45:14
when this last came to committee,
There certainly has been a net improvement in terms of
Density and other aspects as well that have been raised to councillor Wilson
Thank you chairman
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:45:30
I'm gonna make the same point that I do think it's disappointing that the those that have called it in including the town council are
not here to put their case across I do think that I
I'd make that point.
I agree with colleagues and I would like to propose
that we move to approve the application
in line with the officer's recommendation.
I take that as a proposal.
Thank you, any seconders to that?
Councillor Waters.
All in favour of the motion as it stands.
All those against?
Abstentions?
Thank you very much. That vote is carried. Thank you. Thank you
officers. Now before we go to the last item on the agenda, I
Cllr David Moore - 0:46:21
just want to say a huge thank you for for all members here
for attending for the 2025 East and South Buckingham share a
planning committee. But I want to reach out and say a very
special thank you and congratulations to Liz Hornby
who is retired, this is her last meeting,
and will be retiring after 12 years of service
at Wickham District Council,
now here at Buckinghamshire Council.
And before that, at Windsor and Mainhenge,
totaling 18 years of service, is that right?
So on behalf of the committee, members, officers,
a huge thank you for helping us out, supporting us.
I must say, managing Councillors is like herding cattle.
So it's that kind of prod to make sure
we're always attending and making sure these meetings
are well attended and well run.
So just a small thank you from all of us. Thank you very much

6 Date of next meeting

So we now move to the final item which is date of next meeting which is
Tuesday the 13th of January 20 26 at 6 30 p .m. So wishing you all a very happy Christmas and an enjoyable
Thank you very much.