East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 3 February 2026, 6:30pm

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 3rd February 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jonathan Waters

1 Apologies for absence

Share this agenda point

Mrs Clare Gray

2 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Planning Applications

Share this agenda point

4 PL/25/0354/FA Boveney Court Farm, Boveney Road, Dorney, Buckinghamshire

Share this agenda point

Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Ben Robinson
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Richard Regan
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jackson Ng
Mr Ben Robinson
Mr Richard Regan
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jackson Ng
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Ben Robinson
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Ben Robinson
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Richard Regan
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Richard Regan
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jackson Ng
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters

5 PL/25/4751/FA - 59 Old Town Close, Beaconsfield HP9 1LF

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jonathan Waters
Matthew Jackson
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters

6 Date of next meeting

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:08

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the East and South Buckinghamshire Area

Planning Committee. I'm Councillor Jonathan Waters. I'm vice -chairman of the committee.

And as Councillor David Moore is unable to make this evening's meeting, I'll be chairing

the meeting in his absence. Before I start the agenda, I'll have a couple of housekeeping

items. For your information, this meeting is being webcast and 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'll help to sit you in a place which

will not be filmed. The fire exits are located at the back of the chamber down the main stairs

out of the front door. Please follow me and you will congregate outside the space located

over the bridge towards the roundabout. We now move to Agenda item 1, apologies

1 Apologies for absence

Mrs Clare Gray - 0:01:06

for absence. Thank you Chairman, we have apologies from David Moore, Paul Gryphon

and Councillor Frances Nella substituting for Councillor Mojave -Fayes.

2 Declarations of interest

Do we have any declarations of interest? Item 2.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:01:19

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:01:26

and I have come into this committee open -minded.

Thank you.

Councillor Asher.

Thank you.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:01:36

Same application.

I'm a member of that ward, but I come here with an open mind.

Thank you.

Councillor Ng, do you have a declaration to make from the agenda?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:01:52

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:01:57

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:05

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:02:09

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:13

Yes, so that's fine. Yes. Fine. Thank you very much. Agenda item three. May I have your

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

approval that I can sign off the minutes of the previous Eastern South Bucks Area Planning

committee meeting held on 13th of January 2026 these on pages three to

four of your pack are you all happy thank you

Planning Applications

4 PL/25/0354/FA Boveney Court Farm, Boveney Road, Dorney, Buckinghamshire

you now move to agenda item for PL stroke to five stroke zero three five

4 through FA that's probably caught farm lovely Road Dornay

Buckinghamshire this this item is on pages 5 to 134 of your pack this

application has been before the committee previously and only the

following members in attendance on the first occasion that that application

came to committee will be able to vote on the item these members are councillor

Ashman cancer Caesar

cancer Nella

cancer Matthews cancer and cancer Roberts

myself and

Councillor Wilson

Those members who are not present when the application was first considered can ask technical questions of officers and may participate in the debate

But may not vote

Which is only councillor Ted at this meeting

Now hand over to Richard Reagan who will introduce this item

Mr Richard Regan - 0:03:40

Thank You Chairman so this application seeks planning permission for the

redevelopment of the site to provide 12 residential dwellings the application

was considered by members at the committee meeting in September of last

year and the decision was deferred to enable an updated viability assessment

to be undertaken and for clarification to be provided on what measures there

will be for the protection of bats.

The applicant has now appealed the non -determination

of this application.

Accordingly, the council are no longer able

to make a decision on the application.

However, there is a need to inform the council's case

to present to the planning inspector.

The committee are therefore requested

to consider the application and advise what their decision

would have been in order to allow officers

to prepare a case for appeal.

So the recommendation being put to members by officers has been slightly reworded from

that that was on the published committee report.

It's there on the slide on display.

And that is it's been slightly reworded.

Ultimately it's requiring the same but it's been altered to ensure that it is clear on

what members are voting and the reason for that recommendation.

So in terms of just the quick recap of the application itself to remind members,

this is the site that's down in Bovney,

that's close proximity to Dorney Lake, identified there by the red marker.

The application site there consisting of existing buildings,

one of which is a listed building adjacent to partly, shall I say, in the

conservation area. Some photos of the site to remind what it looks like.

Existing buildings here, that's the listed building on the left. Other

existing buildings that will be converted, building there to be replaced.

Views into the sites from the north and then there's a layout of the site there converting

existing buildings in B and the ones that are labelled F, G and E. New developments here,

pair of semis H and G and there was a row of terrorist properties here M to K

at the previous committee meeting members expressed the wish to defer the

application to enable an updated independent viability assessment to be

carried out and to allow for potential discussions to take place between the

officers and the applicants in relation to reconsidering the level of

affordable housing provision an independent viability assessment was

commissioned and a copy of that assessment is attached to Appendix C of

the committee report. The report concludes that it is not viable for the

proposed development to provide a contribution towards affordable housing.

Notwithstanding this it should be noted that the applicant is still willing to

provide a financial contribution that equates to a 21 % provision towards

affordable housing.

With regard to the matter of the protection of bats, members wish for clarification to

be provided to enable the committee to view what the actual on -site measures would be

for the protection of bats prior to the committee actually making decision on the application.

These bat mitigation measures have been set out within the amended committee report that's

before you.

The Council as a College Officer considers that these bat mitigation measures are appropriate

and acceptable and would prevent bats from being adversely impacted upon.

So in conclusion, it has been demonstrated that a higher contribution towards affordable

housing is not viable and clarification has been provided of the bat mitigation measures.

It's also noted that members did not raise objections on any other matters.

Overall, it is your officer's view that the development is acceptable and the recommendation

is that the committee resolve had an appeal against non -determination not been lodged

by the applicant, the committee would be minded to grant the planning commission subject to

the conditions set out in the committee report and the satisfactory completion of a planning

obligation that secures the provision of the financial contribution towards affordable

housing and health care. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. As there are no there's no

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:08:42

public speaking on this application due to having been before the committee

previously so we can now move straight to any technical questions that you

would have for the officers. Councillor Tett. Thank you Chairman. As you said I wasn't at

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:08:58

the previous meeting therefore I'll not be able to vote on this. I nevertheless

have come here with an open mind and no pre -determination on this issue.

I have read the report in great detail.

I'm interested in this issue of the golden rules and how these apply here.

I've come across a previous example of a planning committee where the criteria of the golden

rules were not met and yet the land was still classified by the officers as grey belt.

I had understood, having followed the national debate on the changes in the MPPF, that actually

the positioning of the government was that to release green belt it had to

meet the golden rules now what I'm reading here is somewhat similar in so

far as as I read it and I'm looking at paragraph 416 in particular the major

the golden rules are set out and it says here a it has to provide an amount of

affordable housing and from my recollection that has to be in line with

the local policy. They did try to get 50 % but that wasn't agreed by the

development industry so they defaulted down to the local policy. Secondly

provides necessary improvements to local and national infrastructure and thirdly

provide new or improved existing green space that's accessible to the public. As

I have read this report and please correct me officers if I'm incorrect, it

does not meet the appropriate amount of affordable housing as required by local

policy. Now you've accepted the applicant's viability assessment but

just factually it does not meet that. Secondly in terms of necessary

improvement to local or national infrastructure the only infrastructure

that's mentioned in the report is a contribution to the integrated care

board, a relatively small one. Yet in the report there are mentions of highways

objections in terms of particularly the access to the site and the difficulty of

accessing the site through narrow country lanes potentially for

pedestrian cyclists and so on. So my question to you is you know is is that

actually an accessible is that the requirement outlined in the MPBF in

terms of a contribution to local infrastructure because it doesn't seem

to me that there's been a very wide look or what the necessary infrastructure is

that's required for this site.

Not saying it's the reason to reject it,

but maybe that should have been taken into account

when looking at the contribution.

And thirdly, to provide new and improved

existing green spaces that are accessible to the public.

And again, as I read this officer's report,

it doesn't provide that either.

There is no public access to the proposed green space.

So as far as I can see, those rules that are set out

in paragraph 156 of the MPPF, none of them are actually met.

And if you look at the issue of sustainable transport,

which is also mentioned in the MPPF,

the reference in here,

and I've had to flick to try and find the appropriate,

yes, I think it's 432, 4 .32,

that says it is considered the site is efficiently accessible

to not be isolated or unsustainable.

I believe the wording in the MPPF is different,

and actually what they require is public transport

or sustainable transport such as walking or cycling,

which does not appear to be the case here either.

So I'm just interested in why this has been put forward

in the way that it has, given that it appears

that none of the requirements in the MPPF for Graybelt

are being met, but I stand to be corrected, of course,

by the officers.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:12:51

I'll just deal with the first part of the question with regards to the grey belt question.

You are correct that if the application had been assessed under the grey belt exceptions

for inappropriate development in the green belt, then if it hadn't complied with the

golden rules it would then be inappropriate development in the green belt.

In this case it's actually been assessed under one of the other exceptions, which is

other exceptions in paragraph 154G, which relates to previously developed land.

So that exception allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land, provided it

doesn't result in a substantial impact on the openness of the green belt.

That issue was dealt with under the previous appeal that was dealt with previously. The

Inspector didn't regard the application nor the proposal would have a substantial impact

on the openness of the Green Belt, so it was considered that the proposal met that exception

and wasn't in appropriate development. However, the issue of the golden rule still applies,

although it's a standalone issue.

It's not required under the exception to inappropriateness

in the Greenbelt, it's just standalone.

So it's still a requirement to have regard

to whether or not it meets the golden rules.

So that's set out in the report,

and it's acknowledged that having,

with regards to the affordable housing element,

it's not meeting that part of the golden rules,

and therefore that's been put in the balance as part of the officer's

recommendation. In terms of the remainder of the questions I'll hand you over to

the case officer.

Mr Richard Regan - 0:14:43

So to remind me what the outstanding questions in need. Let me maybe remind

the officer if he was distracted. The golden rules as set out in this report

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:14:57

require the affordable housing to be of the percentage

required locally, which your colleague has admitted

that's not the case in this instance.

There's also requirement for contribution

towards essential local or national infrastructure.

There is a small contribution towards

the integrated care board.

But there's mention in the report about the difficulty

of accessing the site and there doesn't appear to be

any contribution towards highways or sustainable transport

on the site.

And I thought sustainable transport

was one of the key requirements,

albeit for the grey belt,

rather than the previous development land.

And thirdly, requirement for green space

to be publicly accessible,

which again the report indicates that it's not.

So I'm just interested,

why it's been recommended in the way that it has,

when it seems not to meet any of the requirements

Mr Richard Regan - 0:15:57

in the golden rules. So yeah so the first aspect in terms of the affordable

housing so the report does set out that it doesn't meet the required 50 % that's

for the in this instance it's quite clear there so it doesn't meet that

requirement the golden rules in terms of the infrastructure requirements the the

The only requirements that we had presented to us

was from the health authority,

and they provided the calculations

in terms of what the infrastructure was required for that.

We didn't, ultimately the highways department

didn't object to the scheme,

and they didn't put forward any requirements

for infrastructure improvements.

So we can only secure infrastructure improvements and

requirements from where there's evidence that demonstrates they

are necessary.

And on this basis, given that we only had that from the health

authority, that's all that we could secure.

So on that basis, it was considered that that element of

the golden rules had been met.

And in terms of the final elements,

in terms of the open space, again, yes, it's agreed and it's set out in the report that

it doesn't meet that objective of the golden rule.

So overall, it is concluded that the golden rules can't be met, and that is weighed in

the balance, and that does weigh against the scheme when balancing the benefits and the

harms.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:17:45

So just sorry if I may chairman just so I understand completely what's been said by the officers you accept the golden rules are material

Consideration you accept that it has not met the affordability

Element of the golden rules you accept that it hasn't met the green publicly accessible green space aspect of the golden rules

I'm just gonna ask well highways asked whether they wish to see a contribution towards local highways infrastructure or was that effectively left mute?

So we didn't pose the question to them.

Mr Richard Regan - 0:18:15

We would rely on them to us with the evidence of any requirements that we have.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:18:26

It's worth mentioning that what the golden rule says is necessary contributions towards

infrastructure.

Say for it to be necessary there would need to be some form of issue that was being mitigated.

In this case, the highway authority haven't raised objections and they haven't given any any reason to

necessary

Contributions that are necessary to to remedy the any any

Harm resulting from the development. So we wouldn't be we wouldn't have strong grounds for

requiring a

Contribution in that respect and I completely accepted the highways team didn't request that

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:19:06

I'm just surprised and I guess my question therefore is to the highways team ultimately why given the MPPF definition of

Sustainability is that it's accessible by public transport or walking and cycling

Which appears to be difficult from this site that the highways team did not request any

Any contribution for local infrastructure, but I accept totally a word that they didn't ask for it

And therefore, you know, that's that's by the by I do find that very surprising

but still doesn't therefore meet two of the three aspects of the golden rules.

Thank you for that.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:19:40

I think once we get into highways, as the committee will know, on all applications,

it is quite difficult for the committee to override highways as the technical experts.

And so, and though quite often we try to, that hasn't actually gone very well on a number of

So that's one of the bars which is quite difficult for us as committee and I think before we

go to the other individuals, the other thing we need to think about is and has been set

up by the officers is the golden rules have not been met but is that weighed by some of

the other benefits and the clear benefits and that's what we're into within this application.

So and I think all the points you've raised are totally valid to raise

And then councillor Wilson

Thank You chairman

I think councillor Ted has basically

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:20:35

Rerun the arguments that I've raised back in September last year in depth

We're whereby I was bit surprised by the approach to council offices were taking

But I don't plan to rehearse those arguments again because I think we're just gonna hear repeat that the material consideration etc

so that outweighs it.

What I want to know from the offices, Chairman,

is has there been any recent permissions on Great Belts

or similar sites within this authority

or any other authorities when there has been

a considerable or comparable short for,

against the golden rules, affordable housing requirement

and it's been accepted?

And if so, on what basis?

So what I'm looking for is precedent

or are we actually creating precedent in this committee

to effectively say, well, you know, 50 % for the housing,

but if it doesn't meet it, let's go ahead,

and therefore any other applications coming forward

within this authority will simply have to fall behind us

because the precedent has been set.

Thank you.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:21:38

Mr Richard Regan - 0:21:40

So I'm not aware of similar applications

or developments within this authority,

But there are examples of appeal decisions where the golden rules haven't been met and

the inspector has weighed that in the balance.

So they've weighed the harm by not meeting the golden rules in the balance against the

benefits of the scheme.

So that would be outside the authority.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:22:09

So we've looked at appeal decisions nationally to see how inspectors have interpreted that

policy and as Richard says they have taken it in the balance and the I think

the important points are get across which is also in the report is that in

this case because we haven't got a five -year housing land supply we do have

to apply the utility balance so we have to be showing that if we were to refuse

permission we have to show that any adverse impacts of granting permission

would significantly and dimensionably outweigh the benefits when assessed

against the policies and the framework taken as a whole.

And therefore, on that basis,

the officers made the assessment,

they've applied weight to the lack of compliance

with the golden rules,

but then taken it into account in terms of the benefits,

which includes housing and benefits to the listed buildings

and some other benefits such that it's considered overall

to outweigh the harm by all the conflict.

It's essentially, it's not harm in the sense

that it's resulting in physical harm

or something like that.

It's a conflict with the policy in the MPPF,

which are outweighing.

Thank you, Richard.

Thank you, Ben.

I accept that.

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:23:28

I expect the planning spectrum and decisions

into the balance, et cetera.

So therefore, it leads me to my next question,

which is my understanding is when full provision

of affordable housing cannot be met. Inspectors quite sometimes will say

actually within the legal agreement let's have a mechanism where if there's

a viability in uplift to increase the affordable housing let's put that in

there. Is that the case in this situation? And if so can you explain to

this committee what what means for Buckinghamshire Council. Thank you.

So yes the the

draught unilateral

Mr Richard Regan - 0:24:05

undertaking that was submitted as part of the scheme and has

Still forms part of the non termination appeal

It does the seeks to secure a review mechanism. So if there is an uplift

in the

The revenue the sales the profits

Then it will require

viability to be re undertaken to see if the there can be an increase in the

amount of affordable housing provision that can be secured

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:42

and just quickly on that hopefully the reverse can't happen

Mr Richard Regan - 0:24:52

and well it will secure so the amount of money that is secured would be the 21

but 21 equivalent to 21 percent so that can't be that is secured so you can only

secure additional contributions you can't remove the what's already been

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:25:13

secured and I think that's quite useful to clarify and Councillor Wilson thank

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:25:18

you chairman I support my colleagues line of questioning on this and one of

the things that I wanted to clarify in this committee I can't remove it was

this application or other applications, I said,

are the golden rules golden in that you have to meet them

to have the approval to move forwards?

And that may have been in the context

of grey belt definition,

but certainly when we considered this last time

and the previous paper goes into a lot of detail

about the golden rules and it says the golden rules apply.

So I just want to clarify from a national planning policy framework point of view,

is the same rule about the golden rules in application here that you have to meet the

golden rules or is this slightly less golden than under grey belt? It starts to feel like

I'm getting into a kind of colour rainbow here. But under previously developed land,

then are the golden rules less sacrosanct than if under the grey belt definition under the MPPF?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:26:33

So if we're in a situation where we were assessing it under grey belt,

the lack of compliance with the golden rules would carry more weight,

and that would simply be because if it doesn't comply with the golden rules,

it wouldn't meet all the requirements of the grey belt exception.

And as such, it would then be inappropriate development.

And then the MPPF states that you give substantial weight to any harm to the green belt,

including if it's inappropriate.

So in that sense, they carry more weight if you're considering them

as part of the grey belt exception to inappropriateness.

Now in this case, it's different to that because we've established

that it was established at the previous appeal that the proposal wasn't in appropriate

development. It met that, so in green belt terms it is acceptable. However, the paragraph

relating to golden wheels remains and it applies to all development, which is major development.

So it's then a case of applying weight to that paragraph in the MPPF and weighing that

a balance and in this case Richard set out his weighting in terms of the benefits and

the harm resulting from the conflict with that paragraph in the MPPF and he considers

that having regard to the tilted balance that in this case it wouldn't be demonstrably

significantly outweigh the benefits such that we consider that the proposal

should be granted permission. I think you said yes the golden rules do apply. They

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:28:15

do apply. But it's planning judgement in terms of the balance that's been applied

to this. Yes. I think that's what you said. Yes, it's a judgement to be made.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:28:26

I think that there is a difference in you've got more weight to apply and

The weight in the MPPF is more clear if there's a situation where it's inappropriate development

in the green belt, because then the MPPF specifically states that you apply substantial weight

to that arm, whereas in this case, because it's acceptable in the green belt and that's

been established, you're just looking at what the paragraph says, and it says you give significant

weight if it complies with the golden rules, but it doesn't set a specific

weighting if it doesn't comply with them, so therefore it's a judgement for the

decision -maker to do that. Okay, we are the decision -maker so we can

choose to put a different balance on the interpretation of the facts should we

choose to do so. Correct. Okay, the definition of inappropriate development

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:29:21

or not relies on the previous appeal, you're taking the previous planning inspector's

appeal decision and the fact they considered it not to be an appropriate development in

the green belt as the basis upon which this is qualified, am I correct in that?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:29:43

Well, it's not just the inspector's decision as officers, we would also agree with that.

What happened in between the previous application being determined appeal and this application

being submitted, the MPPF changed.

So they changed the assessment for previously developed land such that the assessment is

now whether or not a proposal or redevelopment has a substantial impact on the green belt.

It used to be would it have a greater impact on the green belt.

the inspector considered that the proposal would impact

upon the openness of the green belt,

but I think that, I'll just cheque with the officer

how much weight he applied,

but it was much lesser than substantial.

So on that basis, the inspector's decision

is a material consideration when we're making a decision,

but irrespective of that, if you look at the development

in the round in terms of how much development's come forward

in comparison with the what was there we we wouldn't say that it would be having

a substantial impact on the openness of the green belt that's why we have this

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:30:55

session to understand the technical points the reason I raised the point

about the planning inspectors decision is I recently sat in an appeal alongside

the council it was defending its decision and the planning inspector on

that occasion chose to ignore three previous appeal decisions for refusal,

but this time granted approval. So they're not entirely sacrosanct, so that's

why it's important to understand how much is resting on a previous appeal

decision, but you just qualified that it's actually based on the new version

of the MPPF. Okay, the next point I wanted to pick up, because we did ask for this

viability statement to be prepared.

And then I've subsequently noticed in the original report,

and this is paragraph 4 .19 on page 27, I think it is,

it's quite hard to read.

And it says,

it is noted that the planning practise guidance sets out

that where development is subject to the golden rules,

which we've said is true,

in order for it to meet the requirements of the golden rules

site specific viability assessment

should not be taken into account

for the purposes of reducing developer contributions,

including viability.

As such the proposals are unable to comply with the requirements of criteria a of the golden rules. So

were we wrong as a planning committee to ask for a site -specific viability statement because

Actually, if we'd read the paper correctly the first time around it doesn't apply. I

Think

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:32:26

Based on the sitting through the debate debate at the previous committee

essentially

that was something that you took into account, which was that in the guidance currently,

it states that the golden rule, when considering the golden rule, you can't say that it complies

you to golden rules through viability essentially. So it doesn't comply with the golden rule

simply because it doesn't meet the 50%. Now the government have stated previously that

they may look to review that in the future.

But as it stands, the golden rules can't be complied with

if you're relying on a viability assessment.

However, in the committee previously,

as we were asking you to apply weight

to the non -compliance with the golden rules

in relation and weigh that up in relation to the benefits,

It wasn't unreasonable for you to say you wanted more evidence and information to qualify

how you make that assessment. So I don't think you were incorrect to, in my opinion, you

weren't incorrect to ask for that. I think the conclusions were what we expected.

The reason we hadn't gone to the extent of having a full viability assessment previously

was because the circumstances hadn't fundamentally changed and if anything the viability got

more challenging in the interim, which is borne out from the viability assessment that's

been undertaken. It essentially confirms what we're expecting, but it wasn't incorrect to

go through that process because now you've got the all the information you

would need to understand exactly why the proposal isn't viable for a full policy

complaint affordable housing contribution in fact it the the evidence

suggests it actually would be unviable but the applicant is still proposing to

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:34:42

provide a contribution yeah which kind of brings me on to my next question so

So as the assessment is done, the viability is negative.

And one of the questions I think

that the parish council raised at the time was,

well, if it's unviable, why would you do it?

And then if you add another 280 ,000 pounds onto it

for section 106 plus the 11 ,000 pounds

for 1 .8 metres squared of additional consulting space,

it's gonna become even more unviable.

therefore is it deliverable would be the question. If it's not deliverable then

can we actually approve it? So I'm trying to work through the viability statement

and it's meaningful. One, we shouldn't pay any heed to it in the decision

according to this and two, if it does have meaning and we have to consider

deliver are we giving potentially giving consent to something that's not

deliverable.

Just to clarify, it isn't saying that you can't have regard to a viability as part of

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:35:49

a planning application.

It's just saying that with regard to the golden rules, you can't have regard to it.

So we're acknowledging that it doesn't meet the golden rules, and we'll give way to that.

But in terms of overall, when we're looking at the application, we are having regard to

the viability and what's being proposed.

I just need to cheque with my colleague regarding

the status of the PPS appeal,

because I think it was a similar situation

where the inspector had regard to the deliverability

of the proposal, acknowledging that

it wasn't fully viable, but there was still

a profit accounted for in the assessment,

or in the viability assessment,

albeit a lower profit than what would normally

be considered reasonable for development but in this case the inspector considered that

as there was still a profit result from the development that it was reasonable to accept

the contribution but I'll just double cheque that with the case officer.

Mr Richard Regan - 0:37:02

Yes, I'm reviewing the decision and the inspector concludes, noted the viability, but the contribution

would essentially come at the expense of their profit.

So their developer profit would be lower.

how it considered it was unlikely to render the development under

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:37:25

undeliverable if I may continue going chairman could we could we come back to

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:31

you and I've got a lot more you've got a lot more that's fine I think we will

move to another and then we'll come back to you I've got Councillor Roberts and

then Councillor Ashman then castle Oh wants to come back and then we'll come

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:37:46

back to you Council Wilson well I had two questions the first question was the

one that councillor Wilson has asked about viability and the golden rules so

I think we've heard that viability assessments don't give you a get out of

gaol card for the for the golden rules assessment it's a hard and fast 50 % so

that's that question. The other question I have is on a very different angle. I

wonder if I could, it might be better to come back to that if other people have

got questions that are related to what we're currently discussing. I think if

you ask your question and then we... Okay, so my other question then on a different

angle was about the status of our discussion today versus the appeal and

and how that relates to the judgments that we're making and things like the section 106

agreements that we've talked about, the conditions that are in what we've assessed, how that

relates to what the Inspector might do at appeal.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:38:54

So what we're seeking is a resolution essentially to direct us as officers to, as to how we

conduct ourselves at the appeal.

So if your resolution is that you would refuse permission

then we would, as officers, seek to defend that decision.

Obviously it's in our opinion, as officers,

we feel that the proposal would be acceptable

having regard to all the material considerations

and we feel it's likely that an inspector

would make the same decision.

but it's the committee's decision to make,

because you're no longer able to make a decision

on the application, but it's your decision

as to what resolution you want to make on the application

and how we defend that appeal.

Yeah, and so the inspector, what weight are they likely

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:39:49

to give to what we resolved today

and what the officer's recommendation has been?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:40:00

Well, the Inspector will make the decision based on all the material considerations,

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:02

so they're all set out in the Officer Report. It would depend on your reasons and whether

you've given sufficient weight to all the material considerations. You'd need to be

putting forward your case of argument in the committee as to why you consider the proposal

was acceptable or not acceptable and explain how you've made that weighting in making that

decision. Also obviously having regard to the tilted balance and the need to show that

the proposal map would clearly and dimensionally outweigh the benefits.

Thank you.

Councillor Ashman, and then I had missed

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:40:52

Councillor Matthews, so we'll thank him.

Thank you.

So with regard to paragraph 154G,

it talks about needing to demonstrate substantial harm

in order to override that paragraph.

And I believe what we're saying is there's no one thing here

that demonstrates substantial harm,

but there are a number of material considerations

that demonstrate moderate harm,

including moderate harm to the openness of the green belt,

et cetera, you know, we've talked about impact

on the environment and the viability.

I appreciate that the answer to this question might be,

it's a judgement, but based on your experience

and potentially looking at appeals,

have you seen any evidence of the cumulative effect

of those moderate harm impacts then becoming substantial?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:41:48

In this case, for the exception to inappropriateness you're talking about, which is in 154G, that

only concerns openness. The inspector in the previous appeal, we've just checked in the

previous appeal decision, the inspector considered the proposal would have a moderate impact

on the openness of the green belt. On that basis, given that we've got a clear decision

from an inspector setting out what the level of impact on the openness would be, it would

be very difficult to argue that the proposal would be having a substantial impact or would

result in substantial harm to the openness of the green belt.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:42:32

But then that's not the only factor that we consider when we're looking at this application,

right?

Although that's a determinative factor, there's then all the other factors that we need to

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:42:44

There are other factors, but when you're considering, if you're considering whether the application

is acceptable in the green belt, what you're considering is does it meet the exception

in 154G and the criteria there is specifically related to openness.

So yes, there are other aspects of this application, other material considerations you need to

take account of, but not in relation to green belt.

So you may consider the application is deficient in other aspects, for example, with regards

to the lack of or the conflict with the golden rules.

But given what the inspector said previously, which is a material consideration, my advice

would be not to reopen that because potentially if you went to appeal trying to defend that

contradicting the previous inspector that could be grounds for unreasonable

behaviour

Thank you for clarifying

Councillor Matthews

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:43:46

Thank you. I wonder if you could clarify for me are we looking for 40 % contribution to

affordable housing on this site or 50 %?

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:01

So to meet the golden rules you have to provide you'd have to provide 50 % in

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:10

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:17

they were going to provide 50 % in terms of contribution I'd have to calculate

that it's 1 .3 3 3 million pounds

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:34

okay and another question you said that there's going to be a unilateral

undertaking relating to this that you're negotiating at the moment? So that as part of the the

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:44

appeal they've submitted a unilateral undertaking that is forms the basis of

the previous unilateral undertaking that was formed part of the previous appeal

and it was considered by inspector and also reviewed by the council and its

legal officers so that is that has been smidged as part of the current appeal.

Yes, so that would secure the financial contribution that they're currently

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:45:11

offering. Yes. It would also include a form of overage clause. Yes, so it would seek to

Mr Richard Regan - 0:45:19

secure the financial contribution towards the health infrastructure, the

affordable housing and the review mechanism for the review viability. So

what is that review mechanism?

So it was set, roughly based on when they get

to a certain point in terms of sales,

they've sold a certain number of units,

a reevaluation is done on certain aspects

including sales revenue to see if that causes,

creates an uplift in the profits

and that would release further contributions

towards affordable housing.

Okay, so who would undertake that assessment?

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:46:06

That be us or would that be the developer?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:46:15

We are similar to the current appraisal.

We would have that independently verified.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:46:24

Okay, because the report recommends that you do it at two points in the process that you

should you do it yeah you should do it twice one at the beginning one at the

end pre -implementation and late -stage reviews of viability that's what report

recommends it's page 105 of the pack 105

Mr Richard Regan - 0:47:02

So I think the approach is the same that was previously put forward and

agreed by the inspectors as reasonable meeting the still tests and so that's

the basis of what the current unilateral undertaking is taking.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:47:22

So why do we not get copies of the unilateral undertaking proposal in the papers?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:47:35

It's on the website with all the papers relating to the appeal, so it's as the plans and all

supporting documents with the application that's been submitted as part of the appeal documents.

I would have expected it to be referenced in the report. There you go. Thank you.

Okay, I've got Councillor Unge and then Councillor Wilson.

Thank you. I'm curious about this point because as we sit through this debate,

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:48:02

or this meeting, my memories go back to what happened in September and it's come back to

that the applicant, I believe, is Eton College.

So when it comes to viability,

feasibility and financial undertakings, et cetera,

do we take into consideration the background

of the applicant or the financial background?

I thought you might not too.

Just seems to me that, you know,

might be a relevant point.

You have to look at the site

because it's the site that's relevant.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:48:31

Anyone could own, anyone can actually develop it afterwards.

the ownership is you know it would give a permission for an application not to

a friendly individual.

Councillor Wilson thank you for being patient.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:48:46

No problem at all Chairman. I wanted to come back to the point that Councillor Matthews

raised and this is paragraph 4 .15 page 105 of the economic viability statement

which obviously has been prepared as a new document and subsequent to our

previous meeting. And their recommendations, their final recommendation is we recommend

that if a policy -compliant offer is not made, the scheme should be subject to pre -implementation

and late -stage reviews of viability in order that viability can be assessed over the lifetime

of the developments. That's not, clearly not part of their unilateral undertaking, but

it is one that the independent valuation has recommended. So from my point of view, I think

we should pay some heed to the people that have advised us in terms of what we should be doing.

If I then consider why is that particularly relevant, paragraph 4 .13 of their recommendations

looks at a bit of a sensitivity analysis. I don't think they've done a sensitivity analysis on

every aspect, but looking at the impact of changes to cost and value inputs, they find that either a

percent decrease in costs or a five percent increase in revenue would erode

the current deficit. So it starts to become viable at that point and what I

also note on the table on 102 is that since the previous economic viability

statement was prepared by Savills on behalf of the applicant I believe

actually the costs have come down by four hundred thousand pounds which is

4%. So if costs continue to, would continue to improve, this could very

rapidly get into a positive situation and you know whilst we know that overall

inflation and building inflation perhaps may remain stubborn, the anticipation is

that costs will improve. So it seems to me the recommendation of the

independent surveyors is one that we should pay heed to in terms of any discussion.

And what I'm particularly minded, I said, you know, they've done some sensitivity analysis.

They have looked at the target profit. Saville's looked at 20%. BPS have looked at 17 .5%. But

Clearly the MPPF has a range of 15 to 20%,

but I can't see anywhere in here a modelled version

of a sensitivity analysis at 15%, for example.

And I was the one that had my wrist slapped by the applicant

when I mentioned the fact it was Eton College

last time, I think.

But, you know, so my point is,

the situation has improved markedly

between the previous economic viability statement and this one.

The sensitivities are where they are and certainly from the authorities point of view,

it would seem if the direction of travel is in the same direction,

it would be totally appropriate to have a pre -implementation review of viability.

and not just relying on a late stage when they've already built and selling some.

So that was the point I wanted to raise.

Could the officers just comment on that, because it does sound like something that we should

definitely clearly be stating.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:52:28

So we're just having a look at the agreement to see if that's included, but if members

were minded to go with the recommendation, that could be something that we seek to negotiate

as part of the appeal proceedings.

Well, I'm not suggesting that that is something we should necessarily go with. I just wanted

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:52:53

to raise it as an issue that was mentioned in our own report.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:52:59

Yeah, I think if we get to the debate, it may be something where we actually start talking

about whether that's something we can clearly state as the committee's view of what should happen.

And if that then went to as part of the appeal, then that should be more clearly stated.

Councillor Hung.

Chairman, I just wanted to point out that I was very intrigued by the unilateral undertaking wording,

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:53:22

but it's actually not available online.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:53:52

They're going to quickly look that up, I think, and see if they can find it for you.

Obviously, and come back.

Are there any other questions before?

Councillor Teth.

Yes, thank you.

My second chance of this.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:54:04

I'm just interested in the flooding issue which has been raised.

And I'm slightly confused, I'll be honest with you, by the text here because obviously

one of the claims by I think it's Dorney Parish Council is that the Environment Agency has

said that there is a danger of loss of life for the general public and the access is not

sufficient were there to be I think a flood in that particular instance.

The agent obviously disputes that.

I just wondered if the officers could summarise

exactly what the current position is

from the environment agency,

and do they now deem the site to be safe

for the general public,

should there be any sort of emergency?

Mr Richard Regan - 0:54:52

So yes, I think it was discussed in detail

at the committee previously.

ultimately from my recollection the environment agencies position was the

issue was there would be a small amount of time within which the access road to

the site the I think it was the most severe weather incident would result in

that access being flooded but that would have occurred within a number of days after the

flooding alerts would have taken place.

So ultimately whilst there was a time that would occur when access would have been blocked

off there would be insufficient time prior to that occurring for access and

evacuation to take place and therefore on that basis ultimately there was no

no objection. Can I just clarify that I just again with respect obviously if

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:56:08

you've debated it before and everybody else is very clear on this then fine but

I'm just going on the papers in front of me it isn't clear because it actually

talks about danger of loss of life that is slightly different from there's going

to be some water on the road. Yeah you know so I'm trying to understand the

weight to attach to that is there to quote what I appear to believe is the

Environment Agency's initial view which is there is a danger of loss of life to

the public as opposed to what I hear the officer to be saying which is after two

or three days there might be some water on the road they don't sound compatible

Maybe you could just clarify that for me

So ultimately environment agency, they don't raise an objection

Mr Richard Regan - 0:56:51

but they they noted that

Consideration needs to be given to other matters that fall outside their remit

One of those is which is the evacuation safe evacuation of future occupants

and then I think it's the the wording that it's used in studying standing advice is the risk of

the danger to life

and then that reverts back to the assessment

that's been taken by officers in terms of looking

at those flood events and the level of flooding that occurs.

And that danger to life would only occur

due to the fact that the number of days after

the flood event, the alert would take place,

that there may be people trapped within the development,

therefore hence the designation of danger to life.

Again, that only occurs a number of days after

the flood warnings and evacuation could have taken place.

So again, I'm sorry, this is such an important issue,

in a potential loss of life,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:57:59

I think just needs to be really clear.

So the view of offices as opposed to the environment agency

is that there is no significant risk to,

at risk of loss of life to the general public,

that the flooding would not occur for at least a few days,

and that people could egress the site in cars.

Would that also apply for anybody

who might be disabled, for example,

or potentially elderly?

Just wanna make sure that the committee fully understands

the impact of the environment agency's initial statement,

As opposed to the officers modelling of it. I

Think it is important to note that as part of the previous appeal

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:58:46

It's the those circumstances haven't changed and the planning inspector in making that decision

Didn't consider this was something that would would render the application unacceptable

say it's

Again

the issues that were really

I should be should be focusing on other ones that follow from the from the appeal decision

Just again, so I'm really clicks. I think loss of life is a particular material consideration

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:59:13

Maybe I'm just being over zealous on this but you know, I think it's pretty serious

Are you saying that as a committee we should not?

In your opinion

We should not look at all the considerations on the site but merely focus on the ones to which you've directed us

I suppose what I'm saying is the

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:59:36

Previous appeal decision is a material consideration. Mmm to be to have regard to making that decision

In terms of the flooding issue, I think just cheque with Richard but the the site itself isn't within the

that the floods on which which would

Know so the actual dwellings themselves annoying flood zone 3

Mr Richard Regan - 0:59:59

It's just the element, or the issue is part of the road that you have to access to get

up to Dovney itself. That's the part that floods.

So the issue about someone who is elderly or disabled is of no relevance to this committee

in your view?

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:00:16

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:00:20

It's relevant, but what Richard's saying is because of the nature of the way the flooding

manifests itself, there would be sufficient time to evacuate people before that became

an issue.

I've got Councillor Wilson and then Councillor Caesar and then Councillor Matthews.

No, Councillor Caesar.

Obviously we did talk about it last time and I think you raised some of the similar concerns.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:00:46

If it would help the officers, the local LEED flood authority and the environment agency

subsequently withdrew their objections based on the evidence.

If you look at what I think is page 85, but it could be something else underneath, but

it's second comments received 26th of the 6th 2025 from the Environment Agency.

So I believe the issues were subsequently addressed for both the Local Lead Flood Authority

and the Environment Agency on that.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:01:35

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:01:44

I think it is important to have a clear understanding of the

issue of the

housing contribution, affordable housing contribution, in this document is limited. So there is actually

set a limit on how much that affordable housing contribution should be. So it comes out at

£537 ,600, which is somewhat less than the total that we would be expecting from a 50 %

So can you tell me why that has been put in place?

I'm just looking at the figures.

So if you just bear with us.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:02:52

Mr Richard Regan - 1:03:01

Okay, so the affordable housing provision, because this relates to the policy CP3 element

of the scheme, the local authorities' affordable housing requirements, which is 40%.

40 % equates to 4 .8 units which when you look at the financial contribution, which is £112 ,000

per unit, that equates to a total of 537 ,000, would be the total contribution to make the

40 % requirements of policy CP3.

But when I asked just now, you told me

that it was 50 % that applied to this site.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:03:49

So 50 % in terms of to meet the golden rules requirements

Mr Richard Regan - 1:03:55

is what would be required.

So is that in that original document?

Because at that time, the golden rules didn't exist.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:04:04

So actually, it was under the 40 % originally.

And so that's why that cap was there

when it went to appeal, the new MPBF didn't exist.

So isn't that not raising the question that actually that should now not be the cap?

Yeah, I agree.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:04:25

What it appears, what the applicant has done is resubmitted essentially the same unilateral

undertaking that was submitted as part of the previous appeal and that had the cap at

40 per cent, which is the policy compliant figure.

Obviously, since that previous appeal, the National Planning Policy Framework has changed

and now the requirement is 50 per cent, so that's something that we could pursue as part

of the appeal, have an updated legal agreement which requires a cap at 50 per cent rather

than 40 per cent.

Because the cap has absolutely no relevance under the current circumstances.

It is a historical relevance.

It's relevant in regards to just the local policy, but obviously the MPPF policy is more up to date.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:05:26

And can you tell me where in this agreement is the methodology set out that you described?

Because I can't see it.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:05:35

The methodology for calculating, when we calculate the overage.

Yes, so I think it will be in the schedules.

I did cheque when the review would be carried out.

So as it currently worded, it's the date on which eight dwellings are sold.

So once eight dwellings are sold, they would use those figures to recalculate the viability.

And then if they were sold at a higher level than what was assumed in the current variability

assessment, then that would dictate how much extra financial contribution they would need

to provide.

In terms of the section of the agreement, just finding the page.

So it would be schedule two.

So I'll further down in the agreement.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:07:01

I think we've covered quite a lot of technical questions now.

I've got one more, Councillor Ashman.

Thank you, sorry, I'm conscious

we've not really talked about bats yet.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:07:09

So I note, obviously, that there's been regard

to the updated bat reports

and a lot of extra information's been presented.

Obviously, it still needs to meet the derogation test

in order to go ahead.

I note in 2 .1 .6 looking at the second test, the officers have determined that it would

meet the second test.

But in the appeal, the Inspector was not convinced that it met the second test.

And I'm not aware of anything changing in that regard.

So could you please explain whether something has changed or why there's a discrepancy?

The big change was when the inspector was considering the previous appeal, the information

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:08:01

relating to the surveys and the evidence relating to the bats was out of date. So on that basis

he didn't feel that he could see compliance with the tests.

Sorry, the second test specifically refers to whether there's a satisfactory alternative,

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:08:19

which I don't think would change. That's not to do with the mitigation. That's

whether or not it says while there is extensive detail in the proposal

relating to the alterations and much of the work comprises repairs, it's not been

demonstrated that less extensive work to the buildings or an alternate form of

development would be incapable of preventing deterioration of the

buildings or otherwise achieving acceptable outcomes. I've not picked up

anywhere that that's been addressed.

So I think, let's see, one factor that has a lot of interest in the

Mr Richard Regan - 1:09:20

has changed is obviously the buildings have been standing vacant and have

deteriorated further since the appeal decision they've been left empty so they

deteriorated further and obviously the the up -to -date surveys provide the most

accurate information in terms of what is present and the relevant mitigation that

would be required and that could be incorporated into existing buildings or

elsewhere so ultimately its officers view that that test has been met based

on the circumstances now and the current survey work that's been undertaken.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:10:16

Is it possible to know whether, because I think the survey you reference in the report

is the one that's done in 2024, obviously the appeal also took place in 2024, so would

the Inspector have had access to that information or was it done after the appeal?

Mr Richard Regan - 1:10:32

So the Inspector didn't have access to the most recent up -to -date surveys, hence the

is the basis on which the appeal was dismissed

because he didn't access to,

he was basing his decision on out of dates,

I think from the 2022 reports.

Thank you, so just to summarise,

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:10:53

the expectation is that provided the applicant

waits long enough for the buildings to deteriorate,

then it'll automatically pass that second test,

provided they don't maintain or do anything with them

in the future and just allow them to fall into disrepair.

Mr Richard Regan - 1:11:13

I mean, the assessment has been done and the available evidence and also the Council's

ecology themselves have assessed the information.

And I mean, this is an issue that is quite frequently taken into account for all types

of applications throughout the whole authority where the the derogation

tests do have to be applied so and it is a common a common approach and come

accepted approach that's mitigation requirements measures within the

existing buildings is one that's been accepted by the authority and on many

occasions

the building.

Councillor.

You get a bit more

clarification.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:12:02

I was unaware that a building

falling into this repair or

deteriorating was a material

planning consideration.

consideration when when does that actually

When does that become material when when when would that actually be used as part of the

The decision -making process for us as a council

In this it's what we're talking specifically about

Mr Richard Regan - 1:12:38

bats and impacts on existing bats roost in their in their habitats and

the fact that because the buildings deteriorated going through that that

thought process it's not related to other aspects we're looking specifically

at the aspects of the back mitigation and meeting the derogation tests so is

a material consideration in that specific sense okay so just to clarify

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:13:14

then it's the the fact that the building is deteriorating is only a material

consideration because it puts the bats home in jeopardy. Is that right?

Mr Richard Regan - 1:13:31

It's a consideration in this instance, yes. I think it's also it's important to

I just want to note that as Richard said,

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:13:41

this type of issue crops up across the authority

with regards to redevelopment of sites

and the approach that's been taken

having got to our consultee who's the expert

internally to the council is our ecologist.

They've looked at the proposal and they're happy

that the proposal does meet the derogation tests

and that applying a consistent approach

across Buckinghamshire when they're making those judgments.

I just wanted to clarify something because I was getting quite confused between the 50 %

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:14:20

and the 40 % and the 21%.

If there was a delivery of 50 % affordable housing that would equate to an offsite contribution

of 666, let's call it 667 because 666 is not a particularly good number, which less the

280 that's been offered will be a shortfall of 387.

So I just wanted to be clear in terms of what the numbers are

related to the 50 % equivalent in terms

of the financial contribution, which is roughly how much

the costs have improved about the same amount,

so between the two.

Thank you.

I think that's the last question.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:15:08

We'll now open it up to members to debate the item.

I think we've actually asked a hell of a lot of questions there,

so hopefully you've got as many answers.

It is not an easy decision because it's not ticking a lot of the boxes.

It would make it easy for us to just have a simple decision.

But who would...

Councillor Wilson, you can kick off and I'll take other hands as we go.

I think one of the, my colleague to my right said, one of the challenges with this is the

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:15:39

appeal was done under a different set of planning policies and circumstances have changed both

from a planning policy point of view and understanding how the application of things like golden

rules and all those bits and pieces.

So, in a sense, we're trying to hit a moving target because quite a lot of the interpretation

of what was accepted by the planning inspector at the time may well have subsequently been

shifted a little bit in terms of the policy.

But from my point of view, I really, really struggle with this application of the golden

rules or more the failure to meet the golden rules and in particular then the

weighting that's applied to that which is in the paper described as moderate

but we are told that the golden rules are golden and so from my point of view

I really struggle that we have a shortfall here in terms of the overall

contribution to the affordable housing provision on site or off site. That the

has been stated the statutory consortees have not offered up anything materially

addition to the infrastructure. It is one of my constant frustrations about what

our obligation is as a planning authority to ensure that we are

ensuring that the infrastructure is correct alongside an application.

So, you know, and I think my views on the ICB methodology are well known.

But 1 .8 metres squared of additional consulting space I do not see as a material

contribution to the infrastructure of a community.

And the lack of provision of open space, publicly accessible open space, I think is also problematic.

And then obviously the whole area of economic viability is challenging for me,

both in terms of the unilateral undertaking that's been offered up.

It doesn't meet the requirements by the independent report that we've had for that pre -inspection.

There is a lot of sensitivity around bill cost and market pricing,

as well as the margin that has not been modelled, which was disappointing to be honest.

So I find there's a lot of factors here that I feel this is way in my mind against the committee taking a position of approval,

being minded to approve into a planning appeal.

So I would, I'm mindful that one should let others speak, but I would be happy to move,

propose to refuse, that we would be refusing were we the determining body.

Councillor Tern, you did you want to speak?

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:19:00

I really just looked at you, Chairman, because I was thinking, yet again, unfortunately,

I'm tending to agree with the still Wilson. It's the habit. I'm trying to get out of

But I also have quite a lot of concerns about these golden rules. I'm not sure how golden they are

They begin to sound like rather tarnished copper

because it seems as if they exist but actually they don't really mean very much because

They're always mitigations that you can find to say well, you know, you don't really that public open space

Well, no, it doesn't really meet that 50 % requirement.

Oh, what about, and so it just feels as if

the golden rules really are there almost as a fig leaf

for the release of quote, greenbelt land, unquote,

rather than actually delivering the community benefit,

which the then Secretary of State, Angela Rayner,

publicised so strongly when these were being introduced.

So I'm not comfortable that these rules

have adequately been met.

Likewise, I'm a bit concerned about this viability assessment and how much money would accrue to the council were

the

viability of this site to improve

Nearer the date so I will you know again were the committee minded to approve it. I'd like to see a tighter

Control on the assessment of viability at the point of building and indeed at the point of sale

Such that the council can be sure that as far as possible its affordability

Criteria have indeed been met and this isn't just simply being troused by the developer a surplus profit. Thank you

Council Roberts

yeah, I'm

interested to hear other colleagues because I

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:20:43

I'm in two minds on this, I think,

and I can see if we're minded to approve

then some of the points about improving the amount

that the council has an uplift.

So if, for instance, we talked about

the sensitivity analysis, 5 % improvement in house prices,

we could easily be talking about a much larger profit

from the scheme.

So that should be provided for

if we were minded to approve on that basis.

But the underlying thing is I just feel very uncomfortable

in allowing this to go through with the viability,

excusing the affordable housing provision.

And that's something I feel very uncomfortable about.

So I'm interested in hearing other members' views

and I'm still open -minded on that, I think.

I'm sorry, any other members?

I cast it on.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:21:48

This is not an easy decision,

and I'd like to be clear that I've given

careful consideration to the additional information

that officers have provided,

and also the advice provided by them since the last meeting,

including the explanation around the recent

appeal decisions where inspectors have accepted

reduced affordable housing provisions on viability grounds.

I mean, I do fully recognise that

there might be an appeal risk here, and I do not take that lightly.

However, I think that members are still required to exercise planning judgement.

This is why we're here as committee members.

And in my case, in my view, I think this is one of these cases

where the balance is genuinely really finely poised.

The golden rules were introduced, in my opinion, to secure clear

and meaningful public benefits, particularly in rounds of grey belt locations.

In this case, the proposal, I think in my view, produces a significant shortfall against the 50 % requirement.

So while the viability evidence explains why the requirement cannot be met, it does not still, in my opinion, remove the fact that the proposal remains in clear conflict with the golden rules.

Therefore, for me, the difficulty lies in the weight that is given to that conflict.

I'm not persuaded that the failure to meet the golden rules has been afforded sufficient weight in the overall planning balance,

particularly given the importance attached to them when this policy was adopted.

This is therefore a tough call, and I accept that reasonable people and members and colleagues of this committee may come to a different view.

but in my opinion having weighed the evidence carefully I do not consider the

benefits of the scheme outweighs its failure to comply with the golden rules

and for that reason I'm unable to support the application. Thank You

Chairman.

Just Councillor Ashman do you want to come in? I'll make a couple of points.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:23:47

Thank you I think Councillor Unge covered a lot of the points there

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:23:53

certainly with regards to the fine balance that lies here.

There, we can see that there's benefit to the scheme,

but likewise there are many detrimental factors

that we need to consider,

including obviously the viability.

That said, I don't want to rule out

the back mitigation impact either.

And I just want to come back to the point I made

regarding the second irrigation test which Councillor Hogg mentioned or requested a bit further

information on how that works and it does still seem to be that in order to meet that second test

all you have to do is not maintain and repair the buildings because looking back through the

Ecology Report it talks about the deterioration of the buildings it doesn't mention that those

things can be mitigated outside of this planning application and I'd be surprised

if that's the case surely any owner of property has an obligation to maintain

buildings outside of knocking them down or you know building something else so

I'm not convinced that the inspector would reach a different conclusion that

it still wouldn't meet that second test and would fail the same way that

the first appeal fell on the back mitigation aspects.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:25:26

I do have concerns, obviously it's the members' judgement or the committee's judgement in

terms of making the way in the balance, particularly with regards to the golden reels. In terms

of the ecology that is a technical matter and as the officer set out the approach that's

been taken is a consistent approach by our expert ecologists and if we would appeal as

officers we wouldn't be able to find anyone within the council to defend that because

our technical experts are suggesting that the proposal is acceptable in ecological terms.

So we wouldn't, it would be difficult for us to defend that appeal.

I think we bring ourselves back in terms of why the meeting was deferred was to actually

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:26:22

find particular information to help us make a decision.

One was in terms of further information in terms of the BATs and the issue within that

within the inspectors report.

and obviously we've had some coverage there.

And the issue we have a little bit on that

is going to be in the same way as we have with highways.

If you have our environmental specialist coming back

and saying, actually it does achieve the result,

that makes it difficult for us as members to overrule that

and then go into an appeal on it.

So just keep that in mind, I think is the key thing.

On the other part, obviously, we have got that extra

viability information back that we wanted.

It doesn't solve the problem because it would be nice if it

came back and said yes and actually they've got to do the

50 % because I think that would have given quite a lot of

comfort.

The positive is because we've teased out a little bit more

about any uplift that's there, that that could be worded in a

way that would be acceptable.

So I think that's something we could we could bring in

And then there's the balances we have to take in and I think the big

Question which is coming up is about the golden rules is about the weighting of the golden rules

and the

continuous question of

At what point or if any point?

Should we actually be as a committee?

And obviously there are cases saying, yes, that has happened by inspectors, but we have

to have a think about that because I think that's the thing that's coming back continuously

in terms of whether these things are going to be achieved by this particular development

and whether we are comfortable with that on those golden rules.

So they're the, I think, particular things that we looked at.

We should be thinking about things which we asked for in terms of additionally, have they

answer the questions and that really needs to be the focus.

So they're the sort of key points before we go further forward.

I don't know where the officers would like to come in unless there's somebody else who

would like to speak at this point.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:28:43

I just wanted to add in that I did mention earlier that because we haven't got a five -year

housing land supply, we do need to apply the utility balance.

So in making that judgement, when you're doing that weighting, you need to be having regard

to that and showing that any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

So if it was a case which, I know it's been mentioned, it's a very finely balanced issue,

If it's finally balanced the tilted balance would would weigh in its favour

Simply because that's what the the MPP F's directs us to do

Counsellor home

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:29:32

Just a clarification that because I came late. I'm not supposed to vote am I I

Don't think you can vote it because you weren't here when it was deferred. Yeah

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:29:46

My move front it George?

conifer m Energy?

I think that's slightly an understatement.

And to my mind, then, you know, it concludes that paragraph.

It is considered that this weighs against the proposals and attracts moderate weight.

And that, I think, is a planning judgement of moderate weight.

But for those of us that have enjoyed this committee for the last ten months,

I think it, you know, we've been learning a lot about the golden rules.

and I feel that this goes against what we have been briefed on in terms of how

seriously we should take those so if we were to apply significant weight to the

golden rules then presumably that would alter the planning balance somewhat so

At the end of the day, it's a planning judgement on the planning balance.

My view is that these are very important.

They're there to help mitigate the impact of development, particularly in the green

belt.

This isn't not fully meeting them.

It's not meeting them at all, albeit with a section 106 contribution, which equally

doesn't meet what should be the shortfall by nearly £400 ,000.

Very limited contribution to infrastructure, barely, and no contribution to open space.

So to my mind, that's a very substantial weight in terms of shortfall.

And on that basis, I would propose that we would refuse this application.

and yeah I'm happy to move that as a proposal.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:32:09

I just wanted to make sure that in making that balance

you have in regards to all the weightings

for the benefits as well.

So in the report it does, the officers put forward

their weighting in terms of the additional housing

for example which we regard that would carry

significant weight and also the affordable housing limited weight, the

biodiversity net gain moderate weight, the historic environment moderate weight.

So that, just want to make sure that you're aware of the waiting that officers have set

out. Obviously, members can make a different judgement, but you just need to make sure that

you're carrying out that exercise and also applying the utility balance as well in making

that judgement.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:33:14

Can I just ask one question? In terms of one of the points I think we've been uncomfortable

with is the infrastructure element being so small and the wording within the MPPF that

should be something significant, not practically insignificant, should it not? And I think

that is one of the things which adds to the two different things, which is this lack of

affordable housing contribution and particularly infrastructure which is

barely a nod. The way that it's worded in the paragraph

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:33:50

related to golden reels it talks about necessary infrastructure and as the

officers set out there hasn't been any consulty comments we set out that

there are necessary contributions that should come forward so it wouldn't that

wouldn't be a negative it would be a neutral issue.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:34:23

Okay, Councillor Wilson, do you want to make your proposal? Yes, I am happy to make my

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:34:25

proposal that we should, the committee should refuse on the basis that the

wait according to the golden rules and the failure to deliver the affordable

or full affordable housing contribution,

the lack of infrastructure provision, I take the points,

and the lack of open space provision would, on balance,

taking on board all of the benefits,

not offset those benefits.

I just checked it.

What you're saying is that clearly and demonstrably

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:35:03

outweighs the benefits, so that.

In my opinion, yes.

Sorry, Councillor.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:35:08

Chairman, can I ask the officers a question?

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:35:12

Basically, given what one of the officers said.

If I could.

Basically, Ben, I mean, I've listened to what you said.

I mean, you're talking about the benefits.

Are there any identified benefits

that are considered exceptional or specific to the site,

rather than just benefits that would come

with any other ordinary residential developments?

You know, I'm trying to ascertain,

because you're talking about balances,

and all the benefits I'm hearing is what they could apply

to any site in Buckinghamshire.

What is it so special about the benefits on this site

that we should balance it towards

going against the golden rules?

Thank you.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:35:47

There's not necessarily anything exceptional about the site.

However, there are benefits in terms of the housing

and given the current housing,

five -year housing land supply position,

that does carry significant weight.

So that does apply to lots of developments in Buckinghamshire.

There's also, as set out in the report, there are benefits in terms of delivering improvements

from heritage point of view.

So again, that does distinguish it from perhaps other developments where it's just housing.

And there's also, to a lesser extent, moderate weight attributed to benefits in terms of

biodiversity net gain and also the affordable housing albeit a reduced amount of affordable

housing, we've given that limited weight on account of it not complying with the golden

It is, and I suppose one of the questions of the last one is a limited contribution,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:37:05

which still means a failure of meeting the golden rules on affordable housing, should

it actually be given any kind of positive weighting?

Probably not.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:37:23

In the MPPF, what it states with regards to the golden rules and the weight that you apply

to it, it's a positive weight that applies to it, so it says that you give significant

weight to compliance with the golden rules, but it doesn't apply weighting if it doesn't

comply with the golden rules. So it's a sort of technical conflict with that paragraph

that paragraph rather than applying a specific weighting.

Like it would if, as we've discussed,

if it was a development in the green belt

which was inappropriate, then you would have

substantial weight that would be applied to that

and the MPPF specifically directs you to do that.

Do we have a seconder for the proposal?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:38:09

By and large, I'm only two seconds,

We do have someone else who will second so maybe we go with that so we don't get ourselves

in a technical situation.

Councillor Cissna, please second, yes?

We have a proposal and a seconder.

Can I put that to the vote?

All those in favour of the proposal to refuse?

That's all that can vote and I'll abstain as chairman. So that is a refusal on that

item. I don't know because we've been going quite a while if we should have a five minute

break also council is going to be leaving the meeting now thank you much

I'm conflict of interest I'll be leaving

4 PL/25/0354/FA Boveney Court Farm, Boveney Road, Dorney, Buckinghamshire

thank you everyone we're back to the meeting and we're now on agenda item 5

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:39:38

and that's PL 25 stroke 4751 stroke FA that's 59 Old Town Close

Beaconsfield HP 91 LF I can confirm that council and whose application is has

has left the meeting and I will now hand over to Matthew Jackson who will

Matthew Jackson - 1:40:02

introduce the item. Hi everybody, so the application seeks a two -storey rear

extension, a single -storey side extension, also relocation of existing solar panels

in the rear and first floor flank window as well. Recommendation is conditional

permission having viewed the application

there's no harm to the appearance of the house no issues with the surrounding

area I wouldn't cause loss of light no privacy concerns or outlook concerns

Parking is okay and there's no issues with ecology.

So this is the actual application site.

Could you move the microphone so we can hear better?

Sorry, is that better?

Yeah. Okay, so this is our application site. You've got a garage, one side of it,

and then you've got residential house to the south, so sort of at the bottom of the page.

Our extension is to the rear which is to left hand side, two -storey and it would not extend

any further back than the neighbour which is the attached house to the south of it which

is number 57.

So this is our proposed plan, it's reorientated round the other way but the extension is to

the north on this or to the top of the page the adjoining house is to the left

hand side so our two -storey extension doesn't project back any further than

the neighbour and then you've got a garage to the side you have a single

storey side extension which is going to the side and the rear of the garage so

this is pretty much what it looks like from the end, from the rear

you're gonna have a hipped roof, solar panels on it, quite straight forward

and then a single -storey side extension to the left -hand side, you can see the

sort of pitched roof of the garage behind that to the left -hand side as well

that will be remaining. So this is your side extension, your side elevation, you can see

a dotted outline of the garage which is going to be retained but it's just there so you

can see obviously how it fits in. The two -storey extension is integral to the main house and

and has a pitch roof, hip roof at the back,

and then you can see just sort of like the ridge

of the neighbouring property,

light grey above behind it.

So this is a photo of the rear of the property.

You can see the number 57, immediate neighbour.

It's rendered quite clear there.

Our application property is set back

So the rear extension is not extending any further forwards or any further backwards than the existing wall of the neighbour.

And then you've got that area of decking to the side of the house where the studio is looking to go as well.

And then the flank elevation which is not in the photo, you've got a first floor window which is an en suite and that looks towards number 67 I believe.

This is from the rear cul -de -sac, so you can see you've got the pitch roof of the garage

5 PL/25/4751/FA - 59 Old Town Close, Beaconsfield HP9 1LF

behind the fence, then you've got our rear elevation behind the fence, set back a little

way, got a shed in the forefront and then the neighbour obviously to the right set back.

It is a two -storey extension, so it will be going back into the roof, but in terms of

sort of like the background, there's already a built development in there, so when you

look at it, the proposal will sort of be more integral and it wouldn't be sticking out or

so in Congress.

And yeah, that's basically where we are with that

Thank you, we don't have any speakers this items are there any technical questions that anyone like to ask counsel

Thank You chairman, thank you. So

This application is here because of the nature of the applicants. I completely understand that that's fine

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:45:26

He's absented himself

I'm just really testing

the representations that have been received.

And they're detailed in what I have as page 143,

under representations.

And the Occupy Room 57 has expressed concern

about potential overlooking the garden,

reducing their privacy,

also concerns about the possible loss of natural light

as a consequence.

And then they go on to talk about the impact

of excavation and construction work.

I noticed the responses are detailed

on what I have is page 138 and I just wonder for the record if the officers

could just address those concerns in public so that they are actually noted

because it's important I think for neighbours to know that this committee

has understood their concerns and that the officers have evaluated them and

have come to a conclusion which the committee has noted.

Thank you. I think that would be very helpful.

Yes, thank you.

So as the officer sets out the extension

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:46:35

It doesn't project beyond the rear of the neighbouring property such that it wouldn't result in an overbearing appearance

Or you know any any significant loss of light?

Also, whilst whilst it brings the windows of the building further to the rear

That that wouldn't result in an unacceptable level of overlooking. It's it's a common

relationship in a built -up area.

Generally speaking, we wouldn't be able to defend that

at an appeal if we were to seek to refuse it

on the basis of overlooking,

because it's not a direct looking down,

overlooking as you would find if it was a window

in the side elevation, the windows in the rear.

And also the distance from other neighbouring properties

Such that it wouldn't result in an unacceptable level of loss of privacy

And on that basis we consider the proposal acceptable

Sorry if I can just probe a little bit further in terms of the loss of light which is covered in paragraph 413

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:47:40

but also the issue of the

neighbours concerned about the risk of structural impacts arising from excavation and

and construction work.

To what extent is that a planning consideration

as opposed to building regulations?

So that wouldn't be a planning consideration.

That would be caught by the Party Wall Act,

which is a separate piece of legislation.

So it wouldn't be relevant to the assessment

of this application.

Right, okay, thank you very much.

One of the other points I think is,

from what I can understand, is the buildings,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:48:17

the houses are actually to the south of the extension so in terms of light

there'll be less impact anyway in any case

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:48:38

Councillor I haven't totally understood where the occupier of number 57 is coming

from here. You mentioned that you don't you're not worried about the increased

overlooking of rear -facing rooms but from what we just heard the

extension is only going to go as far as the same level as the back of number 57.

So I don't understand where he's coming from.

Like there must be, in my head,

there's literally zero overlooking of the rear facing room.

So have I missed something?

So perhaps I can't speak for the neighbour,

but perhaps by bringing back,

by bringing the extension of,

bringing the windows further back within the site,

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:49:33

they will be closer to the rear garden of the property.

property, so that would result in a slight increase in what can be overlooked.

And the rear facing rooms?

Not into the rooms of the neighbouring property but it would bring it closer to the garden.

So sometimes people do raise objections on that basis, however as I've explained it's

not a direct overlooking as it would be the case if it was a side window. So for example,

if the extension was projecting beyond the rear of the neighbouring property and had

a window looking down, that would be strong grounds for saying that it was unacceptable

overlooking and loss of privacy. In this case, because the windows are in the rear, they

would be considered unacceptable.

And if you look at the plans, it's no different to the positioning of the house to the south

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:50:38

of that one.

They're all just being lined up in exactly the same way.

Councillor Roberts.

Yeah, just very minor point, really, but just for confirmation.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:50:53

and my understanding from the information is that it's not adding any extra bedrooms

so that means there's no concern about additional parking impact.

Is that correct?

Can you just confirm that's correct?

That's correct, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:51:14

If there's no other questions, would anyone like to open the debate or make a proposal?

Councillor Ted.

Thank you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:51:25

Having taken into account the officer's report and the representations from the neighbour,

which I think have been adequately addressed in the officer's response, I propose that

we should approve this application.

Seconded by Councillor Wilson.

There were other hands up as well.

Can we take the proposal to a vote to approve this application?

Those in favour?

That's eight and I'll be abstaining as the Chairman.

Thank you for that.

It's been quite a long meeting.

The second item is a little bit shorter.

6 Date of next meeting

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:52:11

Just like to bring the meeting to a close.

I am just going to confirm the day to the next meeting.

The day to the next meeting is Tuesday 3 March at 6 .30pm here in the Wycombe office.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Cole Caesar

Reform UK

View profile

Mrs Clare Gray

View profile

Cllr Thomas Hogg

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Wendy Matthews

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Jackson Ng

Conservative

View profile

Mr Richard Regan

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Mr Ben Robinson

View profile

Cllr Martin Tett

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Jonathan Waters

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Stuart Wilson

Independent

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 3 February 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeTuesday, 3rd February 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:08

1 Apologies for absence

Mrs Clare Gray - 0:01:06

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:01:19

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:01:26

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:01:36

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:01:52

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:01:57

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:05

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:02:09

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:13

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Planning Applications

4 PL/25/0354/FA Boveney Court Farm, Boveney Road, Dorney, Buckinghamshire

Mr Richard Regan - 0:03:40

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:08:42

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:08:58

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:12:51

Mr Richard Regan - 0:14:43

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:14:57

Mr Richard Regan - 0:15:57

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:17:45

Mr Richard Regan - 0:18:15

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:18:26

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:19:06

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:19:40

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:20:35

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:21:38

Mr Richard Regan - 0:21:40

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:22:09

Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:23:28

Mr Richard Regan - 0:24:05

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:42

Mr Richard Regan - 0:24:52

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:25:13

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:25:18

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:26:33

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:28:15

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:28:26

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:29:21

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:29:43

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:30:55

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:32:26

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:34:42

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:35:49

Mr Richard Regan - 0:37:02

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:37:25

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:31

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:37:46

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:38:54

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:39:49

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:40:00

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:02

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:40:52

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:41:48

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:42:32

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:42:44

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:43:46

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:01

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:10

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:17

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:34

Mr Richard Regan - 0:44:44

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:45:11

Mr Richard Regan - 0:45:19

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:46:06

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:46:15

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 3rd February 2026 at 6:30pm