East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 13 January 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 13th January 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Leslie Ashton
  2. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Cllr Jackson Ng
  4. Cllr David Moore
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr David Moore
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr David Moore
  9. Cllr Martin Tett
  10. Public Speaker
  11. Cllr David Moore
  12. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  13. Cllr Jackson Ng
  14. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  15. Cllr Jackson Ng
  16. Cllr David Moore
  17. Cllr Martin Tett
  18. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  19. Cllr Martin Tett
  20. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  21. Cllr Martin Tett
  22. Mr Ben Robinson
  23. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  24. Cllr Martin Tett
  25. Cllr Mark Roberts
  26. Mr Ben Robinson
  27. Cllr Mark Roberts
  28. Mr Ben Robinson
  29. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  30. Mr Ben Robinson
  31. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  32. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  33. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  34. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  35. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  36. Cllr David Moore
  37. Mr Ben Robinson
  38. Cllr David Moore
  39. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  40. Cllr David Moore
  41. Cllr Martin Tett
  42. Mr Ben Robinson
  43. Cllr David Moore
  44. Cllr Mark Roberts
  45. Cllr David Moore
  46. Mr Ben Robinson
  47. Cllr David Moore
  48. Cllr Mark Roberts
  49. Mr Ben Robinson
  50. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  51. Cllr Martin Tett
  52. Mr Ben Robinson
  53. Cllr Martin Tett
  54. Cllr David Moore
  55. Mr Ben Robinson
  56. Cllr Martin Tett
  57. Cllr David Moore
  58. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  59. Cllr David Moore
  60. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  61. Mr Ben Robinson
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Webcast Finished

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:09
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back
ro now I am here in our
members of the public to the meeting.
I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas break
and lots of lovely gifts.
And we've ourselves as a committee
have been given a lovely gift,
which is another MPPF change,
which is currently under consultation.
They always announce it just before Christmas.
So we'll be looking at that in great detail.
But before we start the agenda,
I have a couple of housekeeping items.
For your information, this meeting is being webcasted.
And by entering the room, you have consented to be filmed.
However, if members of the public
do not wish to have their image 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 and out of the
front doors. Please follow me and we will congregate outside in the space located
over the bridge towards the roundabout. Now we have a wonderful change and I say
wonderful because sadly we had a resignation from our planning committee
which Councillor Kelly, we'd like to thank him for his service, but we'd like
to welcome Councillor Martin Tett CBE,
who's very kindly, after pulling,
I pulled his leg a bit here,
he's joined our committee,
the wealth of his experience and knowledge and planning.
We're very, very honoured to have you on the committee.
So thank you very much,
and I'd also like to congratulate Councillor Martin Tett CBE
on his New Year's Honour as Commander
of the most excellent Order of the British Empire.
So congratulations and thank you for your service.
So we move straight to the agenda item one,
which is apologies for absence.
So we have some apologies. Thank you, Chairman.

1 Apologies for absence

We've received apologies from Councillors Wilson and fires.
Councillor West is kindly substituting for Councillor fires.
Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:02:06
And Councillor has excused himself from the committee.
But as you'll see, is present and will be speaking in his capacity as a ward member
noted. Thank you very much.
And thank you to our substitutes.
Cllr David Moore - 0:02:17
Item two declarations of interest.

2 Declarations of interest

Does anyone have any declarations of interest of any of the items here today?
I take that as a no thank you very much agenda item three may I have your

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

approval that I can sign the minutes off for the last meeting held on the 9th of
December 2025 or we contend thank you

Planning Applications

we now move to the first and only agenda item in terms of a planning application

4 PL/25/3469/FA - 40 Woodside Avenue, Beaconsfield HP9 1JH

here today which is PL says 2 5 3 4 6 9 slash FA 40 Woodside Avenue
Beaconsfield HB 9 1 J H I'm now going to hand over to Lucy Dolan who will kindly
introduce the item thank you very much
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:03:01
the application is located at 40 Woodside Avenue in Beaconsfield the
proposal is for the partial demolition and remodelling of the existing dwelling
house incorporating the erection of a front porch canopy first floor front
Bay window two -storey side extension single -storey rear extension and
fenestration alterations together with the erection of a detached dwelling
house with associated landscaping hard standing bin and bike store provision
and alteration to the existing vehicular access there are a number of updates to
give to members the recommendation has been slightly altered it's still the
same to defer it's just as you can read there it's just more substantial reason
and that's defer subject to the completion of the unilateral undertaking
relating to the Burnham beaches special area of conservation which is currently
in the process of being completed and there is a slight change to condition
six which relates to parking and the the highways officer had originally
recommended to construct the initial five metres back from the edge of
Woodside Avenue to be in a hard -bound surface,
but because these are existing access points,
they're happy to remove that element.
And there is also just one more update
that I've just spotted.
Paragraph 4 .14 of the report,
the density should actually read 16 .6.
The site lies at the western side of Woodside Avenue
with the existing plot
accommodating a single detached dwelling.
The site benefits from an existing dual access point
with spacious frontage providing adequate parking.
As stated, the proposal seeks to partially demolish
the existing southern aspect of the dwelling
and erect an additional detached dwelling on site.
This slide also shows a location of the plot
within the context of Woodside Avenue.
For the benefits of those members who did not attend site,
here is the context of the street
seen along Woodside Avenue.
So the dwelling can be seen with the red arrow pointed to it
and this is it from another angle.
This is it from the fronted and this is the neighbour at number 40A.
This is from the rear plot of the rear aspect.
And here at the side, flank windows of number 40A.
These dwellings immediately opposite the site.
And it is worth pointing out, as members saw on site
further to the north at number 36, there is an existing.
The plot was subdivided at the front, provided a semi -detached pair.
And as you can see to the rear,
there is also a single detached dwelling at the rear.
And this slide just shows the existing front
and rear elevations of the property.
Moving on, this shows the elevations
of the proposed new dwelling
and the existing dwelling having been remodelled.
You can see annotated in the red dashed line
the outline of the original existing dwelling on site,
which shows the southwestern flank
of the proposed new dwelling does not extend
to a greater width than the existing built form.
This also shows the flank elevations of Plot 1.
This shows the elevation of the remodelled dwelling and first floor and above flank windows in both the new and remodelled dwellings have been conditioned to be obscurely glazed.
These are the floor plans of both the proposed dwelling and the remodelled dwelling and both dwellings are to be four bedrooms.
These following plans show the proposed site plan. Proposed separation distances
are approximately 2 .4 metres from the proposed new dwelling to number 40A and
the distance between the new dwelling and number 40 being approximately 1 .9.
The proposed running does not intersect the relevant 60 and 45 degree sight
lines. Spacing is maintained to the front to adequately serve the required parking
spaces of three with each dwelling having their own access point which are
existing. Highways have also confirmed that the configuration of the proposed
parking is acceptable. Waste storage is denoted on the site plans and a
landscaping scheme is conditioned to be submitted prior to the initial
occupation of the dwellings. A further site plan has been sent over from the
agent just to show the site in its true orientation which shows adequate
spacing and corresponding separation distances for those
dwellings sited on the eastern side of Woodside Avenue. It also shows to the
North of the site, a development which was granted in 2020,
which is the image that I showed you a minute ago,
highlighted in red here.
And that is all, Chair, thank you.
Thank you very much, Lisa,
that's very kind for your report.
We now move to the two speakers on this item.
Cllr David Moore - 0:07:44
Firstly, the War Councillor, in his capacity as War Councillor
for Beckonsfield, Councillor Jackson -Oen,
and Mr. Mark Longworth, who is the agent of the application.
So what we're gonna happen is you will have your three
minutes, both of you, and then we will be able to ask,
points of clarification to you both on your speeches you have made but you will firstly commence with the speeches first starting with
Councillor Un, and then you Mr Longworth. So we first move to Councillor Un, you have three minutes to speak on this application
As you know, you have the green amber red system. Amber means you have 30 seconds left and red means
Your time is complete. So whenever you're ready you may begin. Thank you
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:08:25
Colleagues, we all know that our local area needs more homes, but our duty is to secure
the right homes in the right places, not to just simply approve development at all costs.
This application, in my respectful view, crosses the thin line from sensible intensification
into harmful erosion of a settled neighbourhood. I would ask councillors to focus on three
things. The place, the people and the practicalities. Firstly, the place. This part of Woodside Avenue
is identified as green suburban with a strong landscape character, spacious plots, greenery
and a rhythm along the street that residents value and that policy expects us to protect it.
Even the applicant's own material recognises the green and spacious character of the area.
This proposal takes one of these generous plots and splits them into tenon form with two
substantial dwellings. Whatever the density, once it's been changed, it's been changed
and it impacts the residents. Secondly, the people. Planning isn't just about drawings,
it's really about the impact on someone's home. The neighbour at 40A faces a materially
different relationship, increased two -storey debt with a close -flanked relationship. The
report relies on a standard 45, 60 degree guidance, but you members are not here to
tick a box or a guideline, you're here to judge in real life whether that outcome is
overbearing or enclosing in real life. The residents' concerns are straightforward.
What is presently a liked relationship becomes a dominant relationship between its neighbours,
with a real sense of loss, not just a technical change.
Then we get onto practicalities. Now I appreciate there are new amendments to the proposed conditions,
but this requires further scrutiny. The Highway Authority rightly so does not object, it says so,
but it does flag up the fact that the Plot 1 parking and manoeuvring is very tight
and in my view awkward to use if all spaces are occupied. It recommends changes, widening the
drop curb, adjusting the hedge and more hard standing to make it work properly. That is an
early warning to councillors about the day -to -day functioning of this plot. Approving a scheme,
not knowing knowing it's awkward at design stage risk avoidable avoidable on -street pressure and
repeating shuffling at the frontage. Finally members should note that the recommendation
is to delegate subject to approval of a special area character mitigation scheme. If character is
central and it is in my view members should be clear what mitigation is actually being secured
rather than living it as a latest detail. For those reasons I would invite a committee and
new council has refused this application as contrary to development plan policies
and character residential amenity and highway practicality.
However, if you members are not with me on refusal,
then I will at the very least ask you to defer and require a revised scheme that
genuinely protects the green character of the area,
safeguards for CA from overbearing impact and the loss of privacy and free
fixes. Thank you, Councillor. Your time is up. Thank you very much.
Cllr David Moore - 0:11:28
We now move to Mr Longworth who again you will have three minutes. Amber is 30 seconds
left and red means your time is up. You may start when ready. Thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:11:38
Good evening. In recent committee meetings members have voiced a strong preference for
any development to be undertaken on previously developed land in preference to greenfield
development and again we have listened to you by proposing a development on previously
developed land on a highly sustainable site with an 800 metre walking distance of station
approach. Number 40 is a tied and badly extended house on an unusually large plot. The applicant
will retain the better parts of the existing dwelling, which will be refurbished and extended.
Modern extensions and part of the house will be removed to enable additional dwelling.
The extensions and the new dwelling follow the detail and character and detailing of
the original dwelling. The massing and depth of the new house reflects the original house
and other examples in the road. The development will be similar in principle to the recently
constructed dwellings at 36 Woodside Avenue. The proposed new dwelling will be situated
to the 40A with a two -storey separation of 7 metres to the flank of the existing dwelling
at number 40A, as opposed to the extended one. There will be no overlooking or over -shading
as the first floor of the rear elevation is set behind by 2 metres compared to the rear
elevation of number 40A and the hipped roof takes massing away from 48 creating an interactive
street scene. The development will have a low density of 16 .6 hectare and plot widths
will be 13 metres, will be greater than 36, sorry, I don't need it, plot one will have
a width of 10 .2 metres comparable to dwellings opposite and 1 .3 metres wider than 36A. The
The dwellings are located on a quiet residential road where there is a good capacity for visitor parking.
It is also important to note the new MPPF which will shortly be adopted.
Policy L2C outlines that substantial weight should be given to benefits of proposals for additional dwellings and residential curtilages.
Policy L3 details that the density for developments within walking distance of well -connected train stations should be a minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare.
Ministerial announcements made by Rachel Reeves and Housing Secretary Steve Reid on 18 November
make it clear that house building around train stations should be given a default yes.
This is a carefully balanced scheme reflecting the character of the area following development
principles established on other recent developments.
The proposals increase the development density to a low 18 dwellings per hectare which is
considered transitional to the draught MPPF which would require a development
density double that of the proposed scheme. We also note that since this
application was submitted PIP has been approved for our house to the rear and a
technical discharge has been submitted. Next door at 48 a PIP for a three -storey
backland dwelling is now at the section 106 stage after being found acceptable
and the recent extension permission to number 48 which is shown on our drawings
is unlikely to be implemented if the backland.
Thank you very much Mr. Longworth, your time is up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr David Moore - 0:14:48
We now move to questions to the speakers,
to the two speakers we have just heard.
Does anyone like to kick us off?
I'd like to firstly ask a question to Mr. Longworth.
You mentioned about the MPPF on train stations
and that it should be automatically passed through.
I just want to clarify that
because it's not currently in effect,
it's in consultation stage,
so it's not part of the development plan.
Can I just clarify that with you?
Public Speaker - 0:15:14
That is very much the case. It's really highlighting the direction of travel and pressure from
the government and obviously we want to avoid a planning inspector having to make a decision
on this. However, if they do, it will be on the basis of whatever planning policies are
in place at the time. But I really want to highlight this committee has spoken a number
of times about distance to train stations, the sustainability and where developments
to be proposed. You've had a lot of debates about the 800 metre distance and this is within
that so it is a highly sustainable location and also one where people are probably not
going to have as many cars because they're able to walk to the station. So I think those
things sort of weigh in. However, if you look at the density that's proposed, it's really
low still. It is higher than, obviously we're changing from one house to two, but when saying
it's 16 .6 dwellings per hectare.
PPG3, which has been abolished,
but that used to talk about 30 dwellings per hectare.
So I think it's very relevant to mention
different policies and different densities.
Thank you, and just a note,
Cllr David Moore - 0:16:21
we have to obviously apply the application here
and now with the development plan in front of us,
which is very important.
Does anyone have any other questions to the speakers?
Councillor Tait.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:16:32
Thank you, just trying to learn how to control these mics
in a different council chamber.
This is tricky.
I mean, I'm just obviously going by the information
the officers have presented
and the report we have in front of us.
The density is clearly very different from that
in the surrounding area, but you're right.
It's more in line with the government policy at the moment.
The building line, when I looked at it on the map
that the officer presented,
it does appear to be forward of the neighbouring houses.
just a sorry to interrupt council tech we're having a questions to the speakers
oh I'm very sorry there's no very fine which do you have any questions to the
speakers for now is it true that the building line is forward of the
Public Speaker - 0:17:22
adjoining houses if Lucy Dolan could put the map of the area back on the screen
you'll see that sort of there is quite an undulating sort of difference in
houses along the road.
However, plot one, we have pulled,
shall I say, westwards to create a staggered line
which makes sure that we, again,
match the sort of,
don't impact on the 45 degree line from the front elevation
and plot two, on its most eastern part,
that is an existing elevation.
So we've taken the existing building,
removed part of it and then put an additional house to the south side and
stepped it backwards away from the road compared to the existing front elevation
of the dwelling. Sorry I'm just I apologise I'm just seeing it I think
that's the existing building isn't it you're showing so it's actually pretty
well in in line with the retained sorry the the previous building and the new
building are pretty well in line in terms of their forward.
Okay, got that.
Thank you very much for that.
Good information.
Thank you, Councillor Tett.
Any more questions for the speakers?
Councillor Waters.
Cllr David Moore - 0:18:34
Thank you, Chairman.
This is a question to Councillor Ng.
One of the things you're talking about
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:18:41
is the character of the area.
And obviously having done the site visit
and knowing the area before,
It's actually quite an unusual setup in terms of there are quite significantly different
elements of character there.
There's not a consistency, particularly one side of the road to the other.
And also a couple of years ago where there was the other development further up, it almost
mirrors that type of development here.
So I'm not quite sure in terms of the character argument, how strong an argument that is in
terms of consistency, and I'd like to get a bit more of your view of why you think that
is a strong argument.
Thank you, Councillor Waters.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:19:37
So I'm not an expert on architectural things or design codes, but if I was walking down
the street on that street, which I have actually cycled there many times and walked my dog
around there. You're right, they're different characters in relation to types of builds,
you know, the frontage of it, etc, etc. But what they all sort of scream out to me, certainly,
in terms of density or character, is the fact that most of them are, you know, if they are detached,
you know, the side areas they have, they're quite spacious. If they're semi -detached,
they're not as... I think what I'm trying to emphasise is the distance
between the properties is a character.
And with this proposed development,
it would bring the space between the properties
much closer than the other properties on the streets
are currently with their neighbours.
And I think that impacts character,
and to a degree it goes to its density.
So when we talk about character,
some might think actually it's how it looks,
and what kind of windows, what kind of bricks,
what kind of rules, but actually I'm looking at
how close they are to the neighbours,
because they are quite well spaced,
at the moment, but if we start having many many of these applications coming in where they're all
so close or one metre away from the neighbour, it impacts the character of the area. I hope that helps.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:21:02
Thank you, and you started to mention but didn't get to finish, you were talking about a green
scheme, a different sort of green scheme to them what's put forward, what were you meaning by that?
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:21:14
I was talking about effectively the Burnham, the mitigation scheme for the
Burnham beaches I think. I think there was a deferment, my understanding, for a
condition although that might have been replaced by what's come up when the
officer reported it which I couldn't find online and I wasn't notified until
we set in this room. Thank you. Thank you Councillors. Is there any more
Cllr David Moore - 0:21:42
questions to councillor okay thank you very much mr. Longworth thank you very
much council and for your time we now move to questions the offices of
clarification regarding the application does anyone have any questions to the
officers council tech did you want to pose any more quite you mentioned some
clarification points the officers yes thank you I mean just again I'm gonna
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:21:59
apologise it's probably in the report the density of this versus the density
of the other surrounding properties I understand entirely the whole direction
no travel from the government is towards high densities,
but I'm just trying to get the two in my mind.
Yeah, so the one at this site is 16 .6.
The example - Sorry, 16.
16.
16 .6.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:22:22
The example at 36 Woodside Avenue,
where the picture that I showed with the two at the front
and the one at the back that's already been developed
is 15 .7.
And then directly opposite the site,
the density is 16 .6 also.
So it's in the kind of immediate locality along this road,
it would be in keeping with the density.
And what about the adjacent properties either side?
Adjacent, what do you mean by that?
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:22:54
If you've got a development on the side,
what was the density of the adjacent properties?
I mean, they look to be substantially bigger
in bigger, they look to be in bigger grounds
and therefore at a lower density.
That's correct, isn't it?
Yeah, I don't have the specific density calculations
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:23:09
for those things.
No, I'm just looking at it on the map here.
Again, I completely understand the current direction
of travel from the government in terms of density.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:23:16
But I understand also the residents' concern
about these will be different properties
from the ones that are in the area
and will clearly potentially, without predetermination,
set a precedent for other developments in the road.
I think it's worth mentioning in terms of assessing whether developments in character with the area
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:23:43
You wouldn't necessarily look at one house next door in terms of its density looking at the sort of general character
Sure along the street and as council waters
Has mentioned it's very mixed
so
adding another development which is
Of a similar density to other examples along the street would be in keeping with that mixture of densities down there
also the
distances from
boundaries and
Causing mentioned the distances to the various boundaries again
There's a mixture of properties down there with different distances from boundaries
But there are other examples which are very similar in terms of how far they are from the boundaries and their distances between buildings
I think Lucy's got some examples. I would probably worth just mentioning
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:24:35
Yes, so specifically so that the separation distances for this one are around
2 .4 for the new dwelling to number 48 and around 1 .9 between the two plots proposed
Number 37 to 39 opposite is 1 .5 metres and number 45 to 46
Which is slightly further south in the road is 2 .1 metres
So they would be relatively in keeping with with what is already there. Thank
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:25:05
you. While I completely empathise with other residents I'm struggling to see in
planning terms how one could easily turn this down but that's based on the
evidence I've heard this evening. Thank You Councillor Roberts and then Councillor Waters.
Yeah my question is really around that there's been the issue raised about the
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:25:23
impact on 40a and 40a has planning applications relating to that and there
are the pips I believe other applications for the rears of both 40
and 40a I believe that's correct from what I saw so I've just run trying to
understand in terms of judging this application today which of those are we
to take account of and what's the relationship between us judging this application and those
pending applications or approved applications which haven't been built yet?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:26:08
So you would take into account what's currently on the ground primarily because as you just
mentioned, whilst our permissions for extensions to the neighbour and a house to the rear,
They may not get built. So you have to have regard to what's what's there on the ground currently
in terms of the impact on number 48 we have looked at the windows in the side elevation as to ever bring in the
House closer to the boundary whether that would have a material harm to that property now the windows are consist of a landing window
serving the stairs and a
bathroom
which is obscure glazed, both of which are not habitable rooms, so we wouldn't be able to sustain a refusal on grounds that the
Proposal would be harmful to the meanesses of that property. Also as mentioned it doesn't project
there's only the single storey project beyond the
Neighbours and it doesn't project significantly. The two -storey doesn't project beyond the neighbour either
So there isn't really any harm in terms of it being a sort of overbearing appearance
or anything like that when viewed from the garden.
So on that basis there isn't grounds to refuse on the amenity of the neighbour.
Okay.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:27:25
If I may, there's one other point that was mentioned in the parish response.
It was about drainage.
So is that covered sufficiently in here or is there a condition relating to that,
to have a drainage scheme?
There isn't a condition,
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:27:39
the development doesn't significantly increase
the sort of floor space of the building on the site
and the frontage of the site is already
gravelled for parking,
so it's not significantly changing that
and that's already sort of permeable
in a similar type of hard standing on the front
Would be the same say we didn't consider it necessary to have
further drainage
conditions
it's not within one of the
Higher flood zones to two or three Eva so it wouldn't be at risk of that type of flooding
Thank You councillor Roberts councillor waters
Yeah, I've just got a couple of things just to double cheque in terms of the parking
From what I can gather from the reports
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:28:31
It conforms with the requirements for three spaces.
The one which doesn't look great is because people are going to have to be reversing out,
though it's a quiet road.
Presumably there are no objections from highways in terms of that set up, because normally
you'd want cars to be able to turn and go out in a forward direction.
But that is not something that they've raised in any way.
The other point I've got in terms of the amenity space of neighbours and because of the height
particularly of plot one, what I would be concerned about is in future would be dormers
being put into that rear space because that would make it quite dominant and could possibly
particularly overlook into neighbouring space,
and whether we could do something to remove that
permitted development and we'd have to come back
for permission if that was something in the future.
I think that would help protect this ring fence.
This development was saying it's okay,
but not to automatically go straight on
to do something else onto it.
So in terms of the parking, as mentioned,
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:29:49
the County highway, sorry the highway team haven't objected to the level of
parking. They did note that it is quite tight but they didn't consider that to
be an issue such they would object. It's a fairly quiet road where vehicles won't
be travelling at high speed so I wouldn't have thought there'd be an issue. That is
also parking available on street as well if there is a need to park additional
Parking in terms of potential for conditions for impact on the pot to the rear
the road obviously does be already windows at first floor level and
Normally additional windows
That wouldn't necessarily increase that level of overlooking and so to a harmful level
Taking away permit development rice in
In paragraph 55 of the MPPF, it does say that planning conditions should not be used to
restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do
so.
So you'd need to be satisfied that them exercising permitted development rights in terms of a
dorm or window, for example, under class B of part one, that that would be sufficiently
harmful to justify a condition removing those rates?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:31:14
I think both immunity there but also because you're going to have a house in the back.
And I know there's quite a distance in terms of back garden but again you're going to be
looking straight into that additional house and obviously we're not considering that house
at all, but we have to consider what impact this could have on anything that goes on that
site. Obviously that is not something the committee is looking at, so we're only looking
at the ring fence site, but any other potential, and obviously even though it's not built,
it has a potential because it's moved beyond just a green space. So I think actually putting
something in there just to make sure that we have some form of control on it
would be something I would like to see. Thank You councillor Waters. Councillor
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:32:09
Matthews. Going back to the density in the report it says that the density would be for 4 .54
dwellings per hectare for the two dwellings but what would it be if you
included the third dwelling at the back because that's already been given
permission although we don't have a full application so what would the density be
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:32:37
on the plot the existing plot as it is I provided an update on the density in the
beginning section correcting that what was in the report and because that is
incorrect it should be sixteen point six and if we include the the pip the
potential dwelling to the rear it would take that density to twelve point five
if all three were there.
Thank you, and my other question is relating to the access
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:32:59
to the approved dwelling at the back,
because the two red lines are overlapping
for the two applications.
So how is access going to be achieved to the back dwelling?
So the proposal is so that the access serving Plot 2,
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:33:16
which is existing, they're proposing to slightly widen,
and that will also serve the rear house at the back.
So it's gonna be a shared access?
Okay.
So there won't be any differentiation
between the two accesses then?
No, so plot two and if they build the rear pip dwelling
which have one access and then plot one
would also have its own access point.
Cllr David Moore - 0:33:43
Any more questions to the officers?
I
Have one myself regarding the SAC mitigation scheme. So just want to clarify what it is what it secures
any BNG units and also triggers and
Confirming that that you know actual entertain which I understand is the legal agreement will be in place before
If we are to agree, yes
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:34:09
In regards to the Bena beaches SAC
that is within the zone of influence.
We have a supplementary planning document that sets out how we deal with those applications
and that's essentially there's mitigation in place and providing they enter into a unilateral
undertaking which is a legal agreement to secure the mitigation.
The development is acceptable and it doesn't harm, isn't considered to harm the Burnaby
SAC so the updated
Recommendation and it was just it was just make it a little bit more robust essentially just to set out that
In the event that the applicant refuses to enter into the legal agreement that we'd have delegated powers to refuse planning permission
For basically for not having the mitigation in place. So it was just to give it would save save it bringing it back to committee
But it's adding that little bit extra control rather than having taken it away.
So what was the...
No, I think that's largely my question.
I think that's an important backstop.
Cllr David Moore - 0:35:15
I just want to go back to Councillor Waters.
You mentioned about landscaping conditioning.
Was it Councillor Matthews?
Are there any particular conditions you wanted to see there?
Or was it regarding the PIP?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:32
No, I didn't mention landscape. I asked a question whether it was landscape, but it actually wasn't to do with that
of cancer the key thing for myself is looking at that door my window at the
Potentially if they wanted to put that in on that in the roof line line particularly a plot one. I think
Thank you very much councillor said
Cllr David Moore - 0:35:49
Apologise for a late entry on this one
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:35:52
I've just been reading Councillor Dali's comments in her objection and I just want to clarify my understanding
So she says that the her contention is that the development would be contrary
to the South Bucks local plan
1999 and she goes into the reasons for that. I just want to be clear is the recommendation for
Agreement based upon the fact that less weight should be given to that plan because of its age
or is it that the new NPPF effectively trumps the plan,
even if it were more recent?
Or does it actually meet the requirements
of the local plan anyway?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:36:32
The report sets out that it meets the local plan
in any event, but if it didn't,
we would still have to look at the NPPF
and how it balanced and apply the presumption
in favour of sustainable development and the tilted balance.
but in this case, it's the offices opinion the proposal would be with accord with the
local plan so it would be
Would meet the policies in that so that's a difference of opinion
I suppose between the the offices and the local member
Understand. Thank you
That's a good question. Any more questions to the officers before we move to the debate?
Cllr David Moore - 0:37:11
Well, thank you very much officers. Thank you for your detailed report
we now move to the debate itself does anyone like to start us off
are we members satisfied with the report whether any bits that we want to see
we're not satisfied with with the with the material considerations in play any
any points on densification perhaps council Roberts yeah I listened with
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:37:40
interest to what the point Councillor Waters was raising about the about
potentially putting a condition about the dormer windows in the loft having
experienced a property built nearby with which later got dormers added it does
particularly in the winter does get a lot of light interference for the
properties and so I have some sympathy with that I don't know about other
members but I have some sympathy with that and I've just wanted to mention
that on the main points that are raised I'm satisfied with the other points of
in the report about the density relationship with number 48 and the
highways access and those points I'm I'm satisfied with but I am sympathetic with
the point that Councillor Waters raised. And would you like to see there any kind
Cllr David Moore - 0:38:43
of scope for any informatives or any of the mitigators for that regarding the
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:38:49
windows? I mean as officers we we don't feel that there would be sufficient
reason to put that condition on. If if you were looking at that type of
condition it would be a condition where you would be removing I'd say class B
and C of the GP of the general committee development order.
So we do have conditions, you could delegate to us
the precise wording, if that's what your decision was.
There is a risk that the applicant could appeal
that condition if they felt it was unreasonable,
because you do need to make sure that any condition
you're putting on meets the test, that they're reasonable.
So essentially justified.
it's my professional opinion would be that it's sufficient
distance from the plots of the rear such that it wouldn't be
wouldn't be harmful if that was the case,
if a domo window was put in.
But obviously members decision to make.
Thank you, Councillor Roberts.
Yeah, if I can just come back on that point.
Cllr David Moore - 0:39:54
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:39:56
My understanding would be that if we put such a condition
on the applicant could appeal but also the other route would be for a future
owner of a property to put forward a variation to remove the condition and
then it would come through the planning process at that time and potentially
come to the committee to to judge so am I right and I think that's the way it
That's that's correct. So within six months of the application
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:30
Being if it was granted permission, they would have the opportunity to appear the the condition if they wanted to but equally as you say
further down the line if they decided they wanted to
Remove the conditional barrier it they could apply for that and then in fact was refused
They could appeal appeal that as well
But it I mean it would give the control to the council as to whether they would would grant it or not
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:41:01
Yes, so if I sort of cover, I would be very happy for you to confirm that condition, if
that's what my colleagues would also like to see.
I would also have had, if we were talking about the development of the rear garden,
which we're not, I would have also had some questions
and dealt a lot deeper in terms of surface water issues,
which I think exist further down on the new development
that took place on the rear garden.
Looking at just this bit of it,
which is all we're looking at, I wouldn't be doing that.
But overall, other than that condition,
I wouldn't have any further comments to make.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:41:51
Thank You councillor waters councillor Ted yes I mean I repeat I have a lot of
sympathy with other residents about this I have a lot of sympathy with
counselling and Councillor Dali on it in terms of their concerns I think the
report is very clear however that in the current light of the MPPF the lack of
the five -year land supply and the officers view which obviously is you
an opinion but you know one with some weight it is very hard to find reasons
to refuse this application much as I can understand residents might want one to
do so my remaining concern actually is more about the parking I I'm a bit
worried about the way in which that parking is squeezed onto those two sites
and I do worry about how it will be in practise rather than how it looks on a
and I just foresee that the manoeuvring of the cars around will actually be
quite tricky in practise and I just wonder again whether there could be any
modification to improve the parking situation on those two sites because I
worry about cars being parked on the road quite frankly and what you'll end
up with is cars not on the site but actually listed around the area.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:43:09
If we could just bring up the plan showing the park and say the front of the plaque,
the re -sculpt potentially you could delegate for officers to discuss with the applicant
about potentially widening that parking area slightly because there's the space where the
grassed ivories if that was a particular concern chairman through you I mean I
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:39
would just like to suggest we do that that does worry me I can see council
just nodding his head I hope he's nodding his head it's moving anyway so
I just think that for me that remains an area of practical implementation which I
I am concerned about and I think if we can find a way of improving that
It would benefit not only the purchases of the property
But also the other residents in the road
It's just to go back to the offices perhaps a condition on the the sweat path and the kind of that area
Cllr David Moore - 0:44:12
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:44:14
The the highway team they didn't know that it was tight, but they didn't feel it was sufficient to warrant an objection
but as you can see, as we saw in the plan, there is a grass area.
It's a balance of having landscaping and hard standing in terms of character.
Probably what you're talking about is probably not a large amount of extra space needed
just to give it some breathing space, I'm assuming.
Maybe perhaps sort of half a metre or so extra in width just to give it a little bit more space.
Does that sound reasonable?
Sorry, it's slightly hard to judge.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:44:55
But I would, you know, the one on the right I'm pretty comfortable with.
It's the one on the left that concerns me.
To be honest, I'm almost happy to leave it to your discretion exactly what you feel could be
Negotiated with the developer and I think it would be in the developers interests because I think it would actually make the properties more
attractive to a potential purchaser
And so I know I would hope that they would be accommodating of changes that make that parking situation slightly better
Thank you
so I know I think there's there's
Cllr David Moore - 0:45:31
Seems to be appetite for mitigators on the melody on the windows and also on the traffic issue on the parking
So is there any more members?
contributions to this
Or do we want to move to a motion?
Did someone want to repose perhaps with those mitigators and into the into the?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:45:51
Mitigations and a seconder, please
So I move to a vote for yes Councillor Matthews.
Cllr David Moore - 0:46:01
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:46:08
Can you just clarify exactly what the modifications are? So it's the if you
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:46:11
could bring up the front page the one with the delegation with the
recommendation so it's that recommendation in it in addition an
additional condition removing permitted development for class B and C of the
general development order and delegation to officers or to the the director of
planning growth and sustainability to negotiate as larger parking area prior
to issuing a decision.
Council Waters, Councillor Teich, are you happy with those?
Yes.
As the motion stands.
Okay, we'll go to a vote.
All in favour of the motion to support.
All those against?
Just me, I abstain as chairman,
so I'm the only abstention.
So that's passed.
Seven to one.
To one abstention.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, members.

5 Date of next meeting

Cllr David Moore - 0:47:18
We now move to the final item, which is date of next meeting, which is Tuesday, the 3rd of February 2026.
It's 30 p .m. So happy January.
Thank you, officers. Thank you, members. Thank you, members of public.
The meeting is now closed. Thank you.
Mr Leslie Ashton
Democratic Services Officer
Buckinghamshire Council
View profile Mr Leslie Ashton