West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18 February 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 18th February 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. Mr Leslie Ashton
  3. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Matthew Hind
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  4. Cllr Matthew Hind
  5. Cllr Mark Turner
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Ms. Heather Smith
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Cllr Darren Hayday
  4. Cllr Mark Turner
  5. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  6. Cllr Mark Turner
  7. Cllr Darren Hayday
  8. Cllr Mark Turner
  9. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  10. Cllr Darren Hayday
  11. Cllr Mark Turner
  12. Public Speaker
  13. Cllr Mark Turner
  14. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  15. Public Speaker
  16. Cllr Mark Turner
  17. Cllr Matthew Hind
  18. Cllr Mark Turner
  19. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  20. Cllr Mark Turner
  21. Cllr Mohammed Ayub
  22. Public Speaker
  23. Cllr Mark Turner
  24. Cllr Arman Alam
  25. Ms. Heather Smith
  26. Cllr Mark Turner
  27. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  28. Ms. Heather Smith
  29. Cllr Mark Turner
  30. Ms. Heather Smith
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Ms. Heather Smith
  33. Cllr Mark Turner
  34. Cllr Matthew Hind
  35. Ms. Heather Smith
  36. Cllr Matthew Hind
  37. Ms. Heather Smith
  38. Cllr Matthew Hind
  39. Cllr Mark Turner
  40. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  41. Ms. Heather Smith
  42. Cllr Mark Turner
  43. Cllr Alan Sherwell
  44. Cllr Mark Turner
  45. Ms. Heather Smith
  46. Cllr Mark Turner
  47. Cllr Matthew Hind
  48. Ms. Heather Smith
  49. Cllr Matthew Hind
  50. Cllr Mark Turner
  51. Cllr Matthew Hind
  52. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  53. Ms. Heather Smith
  54. Ray Martin
  55. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  56. Ms. Heather Smith
  57. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  58. Ms. Heather Smith
  59. Cllr Mark Turner
  60. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  61. Cllr Mark Turner
  62. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  63. Cllr Matthew Hind
  64. Cllr Mark Turner
  65. Cllr Michael West
  66. Cllr Mark Turner
  67. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  68. Cllr Mark Turner
  69. Ray Martin
  70. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. Ian Zabala-Beck
  3. Cllr Mark Turner
  4. Ian Zabala-Beck
  5. Cllr Mark Turner
  6. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  7. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  8. Cllr Mark Turner
  9. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  10. Cllr Mark Turner
  11. Cllr Maz Hussain
  12. Ian Zabala-Beck
  13. Ray Martin
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Cllr Mark Turner
  16. Cllr Matthew Hind
  17. Ian Zabala-Beck
  18. Cllr Mark Turner
  19. Cllr Alan Sherwell
  20. Cllr Mark Turner
  21. Cllr Michael West
  22. Cllr Mark Turner
  23. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Webcast Finished

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the West Buckinghamshire area planning committee.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:00:08
Before we begin the usual housekeeping items, the meeting is webcast and filmed. Entering
the room signifies your consent to be recorded. I notice we don't have anybody in the audience.
In case of a fire alarm, nearest fire exit is the back of the chamber. I will use this
exit to evacuate the assembly point is located outside to the left of the
council building so apologies for absence just received apologies from
Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:43
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:00:46
councillor Townsend does anybody have any interest

2 Declarations of Interest

on the site visit I one of the guy who was showing everybody around I didn't
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:01:00
realise I knew him. You might have to state the application. I haven't seen him for 12
years so it's a long time but it was quite surprising to see him there. Are you going
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:12
to keep an open mind? Can you just clarify which application it is? The white cliff,
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 0:01:18
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:01:20
the golf course. Oh okay okay thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:25
I am a member of a golf club but not this golf club and I never actually played in this
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:01:29
golf club so just flag that I am a golfer but I'm here with a fully open mind but yeah just in case
someone said oh because he's a golfer there's no I never played there not a member there
went there for the first time separately as I did a site visit channel so I did go and look at it as

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:49
Thank you Councillor Collingwood. So we move on to minutes of the previous meeting held on the 19th
of November 2025. If anyone's happy with the minutes, it's not 2025 actually, what was the
date of the last meeting? 17th of December. If you're happy for me to sign the minutes then I will do.
Thank you.

Planning Applications

4 PL/25/4872/FA - Clifton House Hotel, 210 West Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP12 3AR

So we move on to the first application which is PL 25 4872 FA Clifton House
Hotel 210 Wickham Road High Wickham Buckinghamshire HP 12 3 AR. I'd like to
hand over to Heather Smith who will introduce this item. Thank you chair. This
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:02:43
is an application at the Clifton Lodge Hotel, 210 West Wickham Road, High Wickham,
for the proposed change of use of a former hotel to a 23 room house in
multiple occupation. Normally we refer to as an HMO. I just want to draw
attention to the update sheet. I'm assuming members have had a chance to have a
look. You'll see that we've received a late representation from the MHS seeking
funding towards the medical services and we've provided comments on that and
there's also just a couple of small changes to the recommendation just to
give you the opportunity should you want to if we want to add a condition we
could defer it to ahead of planning and they're changing to the word of
condition 10 which relates to the plans. As introduction the application site
comprises an existing hotel which is situated on the northeastern side of
Wickham Road High Wickham. The building is currently vacant and the applicant
states that the hotel has been declining for years but finally closed during the
COVID pandemic. The application site is situated within a predominantly
residential area and is surrounded by dwellings to the north in Templeside
Gardens into the south along West Wickham Road. An existing six -bed HMO lies
adjacent to the western boundary of the site at number 212 while properties to
which 208, 206 are depicted on plans of HMO, but we don't have a record of those.
They could well be in HMO use without the need for planning permission.
Additionally, other HMO properties are scattered along the West Wycombe Road
together with flattered developments and small commercial properties such as
in Antist. This application seeks full planning permission to convert the
existing hotel into a 23 bed HMO. No external alterations to the building are
proposed and only limited internal alterations are required. The submitted
plan showed that the proposed HMO would provide 23 bedrooms, 13
will be for one person and 10 will be for two persons to provide accommodation
for up to 33 people. The proposed accommodation complies with the internal
space standards for this use. In addition the property has space for 23 cars to
park at the rear of the site. Concern has been raised by local councillors and
local residents that the proposed use will result in significant over
development of the plots nuisance to adjacent residents and additional parking
congestion loss of highway safety in the locality. These representations have been
discussed within the officer's report. The application has been referred to the
West Area Planning Committee for determination at the request of
Councillor Darren Hayday and Councillor Also Hayday. We turn to the first slide.
The first slide you can see before you is the,
it shows you the location plan in the top right hand corner
along West Wickham Road,
and it shows you the proposed layout of the site.
Moving on to the next plan.
That's the existing site layout, site survey.
And the next plan we have,
those are the existing floor spaces,
existing floor plans, sorry,
and the next plan is the proposed floor plans.
and we can flip back forward if you want to go back.
Moving on to the photographs,
this is the left -hand side of the front elevation
of the site, next photograph,
and that's the extent of the building
down with the double gables along the front elevation
and the existing front of the site.
Next slide.
That's an existing vehicle practise
on the left -hand side of the property.
That would be where bin stores are going to be provided for this access, so it won't be used as an access to
gain to the rear of the site under this application.
Next slide.
This shows the rear part of the site on the left -hand boundary with the
residential properties in Templeside Gardens at the rear.
Moving on.
That just shows you moving across the rear of the site with the existing parking area, the adjacent properties in Templeside Gardens.
Next photograph. Again, just a close -up of Templeside Gardens. You can see the extent
of the car parking and its current layout in that photograph. Next one. This is the
rear of the building itself and the proximity of the car parking to it. Next slide. Again,
just moving to the right -hand side along the rear car parking towards the right -hand side
of the building as you face the front. Next one. That's really taking that, that
gives a panoramic view really of the whole of the rear of the site. So I'm
standing by the left -hand boundary. Next slide. This is the existing
vehicular access between the properties which will be retained and used as
vehicular access to gain properties. The application site is actually, if you
look at the photograph, is actually the one on the right -hand side. Moving on.
This just shows the relationship with number 212 West Wickham Road, that's in the red brick,
the application site, it's the one in white.
Next slide.
Just more photographs of the existing rear and the location of the properties, again
in red brick right at the top left -hand corner.
Next slide.
Just the adjacent rear boundary, property in the Temple Side Gardens.
I think we're coming to the end.
The vehicle access again onto West Wickham Road.
Just another panoramic shot of the rear of the car parking area.
I think it would be the end?
Yeah, we're at the end.
If we go back to probably the first plan, the location and lights set, and then we can
move on from there.
The key issues really are the impact upon the character of the surrounding area in terms
of the number of uses another similar uses long as Wickham Road the impact on
the amenities of adjacent residents and the impact from parking and highway
safety all these matters have been discussed in the officers report and for
the reasons again just discussing the officers report this proposal complies
with the policies the development plan and is recommended for approval thank
you
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:09:10
We have got public speaking on this.
Councillor Hayday and Mr Duncan Gibson.
So if we start with Councillor Hayday, you have three minutes.
Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee.
Cllr Darren Hayday - 0:09:25
Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak.
I'm here today as a local member to object against this application, proposing the conversion
of Clifton Lodge, the former hotel, into a 23 room HMO which is going to allow 33 people
to live there.
While I fully acknowledge the importance of providing diverse and affordable housing,
this particular scheme at scale proposes significant and unacceptable impacts on the surrounding
community.
Firstly, the scale and density.
A 23 room HMO represents a marked intensification far beyond the established pattern of surrounding
residential properties.
This is not a small scale conversion, this is a high density permanent residential use
in an area already struggling with congestion and constrained infrastructure.
Parking demand here routinely exceeds capacity and we frequently see vehicles mounted on
pavements along West Wycombe Road.
If you were to look at any time you would see this is without even this
starting an issue. This obstructs pushchairs, mobility scooters and
pedestrians having to walk out onto a very busy road. The additional
demand generated by development of this size can only worsen the highway safety
and reduce neighbour amenity. Secondly concerns about future expansion. The
applicant that was already acquired the neighbouring plot and removed its
driveway. That action signals strong potential for a much larger development
footprint, possibly an additional 30%, with even greater implications for
overlooking dominance and overall impact on the area. It's essential that the
committee consider communicative effects, not merely the isolated application in
its planning terms particularly that it will grant a number of those through its
own HMO social housing. Thirdly management community and impact to
development of this size absolutely requires a robust enforceable management
plan yet none has been provided there is no commitments on noise control, refuse
storage, security or anti -social behaviour prevention. Without such safeguards it is
the neighbouring residents who will bear the consequences. This concern is
amplified by the future owners track record. The same owner or soon -to -be
owner operates a number of HMOs along the West Wycombe Road. They and they've
experienced repeated police call -outs and disruption. There's nothing in this
application to show that lessons have been learned or that can be improved.
management practises will be adopted approving another HMO under the same
ownership risks compounding existing issues noted in the community and
recognised during the call in I'm sorry councillor hey there that's your three
minutes okay thank you
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:12:30
does anybody have any technical questions to ask the speaker of
clarification this is sorry clarification just want to double cheque
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:12:45
based on what you've described you said about intensification council heyday I'm
all right I think I've read the report that says it was a 32 bedroom hotel and
it's going down to a 23 bed HMO so I'm not sure about the intensification comes
I'm just trying to work out who was 23 just up to this is a question for
councillor heyday yes it's actually these 23 rooms some of them are double
rooms for clarification on that right okay because he was still in
education so I was trying to work out in testification basis right yeah I think
quite good this is a 32 bedroom hotel that's that's what it was yeah which
could be double bedrooms except for as well okay
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:13:31
Councillor Haydah, do you want to respond?
Cllr Darren Hayday - 0:13:35
I was just going to say the main difference being to answer Councillor Collingwood's question
is basically before it was a hotel so many of the residents living there would have been
non -permanent. They would have visited either by foot or by bus and they would have come
and gone. This is obviously a permanent situation now, holding 33 individuals once at full capacity
at this one site and we're not even mentioning the next door that's just
putting this application
Councillor Roger
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:14:09
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:14:16
Chairman quick one Councillor AD when it was a hotel was the traffic the same or
was it worse or was it you know not that bad
Cllr Darren Hayday - 0:14:29
Well again to answer the question as it was a hotel the continued problem which exists
today even when it's empty are all the cars that park outside because it hasn't got double
yellow lines and we have a problem with different local traders parking cars there.
It's an ongoing problem but when it was a hotel it was different because as I said you
have necessarily a lot of traffic movements coming in and out of the road
but now we're talking about permanent residents living there all of the time
once at full capacity as well. Thank You councillor Hayday. Any other any further
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:15:05
questions or should we move on? Thank you. Mr. Gibson would you have three minutes?
Public Speaker - 0:15:20
Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak. Your Officer's Report is a comprehensive one
and it advises you that the proposed change of use meets all of the required standards
for this type of accommodation. The room sizes, the outlook and daylight, the amount and the
disposition of communal facilities are all policy compliant. The proposal also complies
with your parking standards. There's no evidence, Chairman, that it will result in increased
vehicle movements to and from the site or increased demand for on -street car parking.
You've heard that there are issues already for other reasons clearly unrelated to the
use of the site, nothing to suggest that the use is actually going to intensify in any
sense that has a material impact. You have heard some concerns about potential impact
on neighbours' amenities but I would suggest to you that you can't reasonably dissociate
an assessment of the impact of a 23 room HMO from the fact that it's currently
authorised as a 32 bedroom hotel. If there is an acknowledged need for HMO
accommodation, I don't really think that's in dispute, then this to my mind
is about a good location for it as you're going to find. Some comment has
been made about management and perhaps the potential for further expansion but
the right time for consideration of future proposals to expand if they are indeed forthcoming
is when they're forthcoming and not now, I would suggest management is really a matter
for the HMO licencing process and procedure which are robust and not, I would suggest,
the matter for determining factor in the consideration of a planning application. To my mind this
perfectly acceptable and sensible proposal and and I hope you'll be able
to support it accordingly thank you
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:17:11
Thank You mr. Gibson and does anybody have any questions of clarification for
mr. Gibson council Roger Thank You mr. Gibson obviously you've mentioned
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:17:27
concerns about the management of this property and how mr. Smith has a number
of other properties that have been called into question.
How do we manage that?
Public Speaker - 0:17:40
Council, I haven't said that Mr. Smith's other properties,
frankly, I'm not aware of his other properties.
I'm not suggesting he doesn't have any,
but they're not known to me.
I know nothing of them.
I would add, if I might, that perhaps people
who are more permanently based at the site
much actually be rather more invested in its in its care than transient hotel
guests. Hotels have the capacity for functions, receptions, parties etc etc
which clearly will be removed if it's occupied as a permanent residence for
semi permanent resident for HMO occupies. Thank you. Any further questions?
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:18:23
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:18:28
Councillor Hind. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to provide any form of
garden or greenery around the hotel. Is there anything in there? I
couldn't see anything in the application to suggest there was an attempt to try
and prettify the area. Sorry Councillor Hind, this is questions of
clarification on what's been said
we're not delving into the application at this point that that is for technical questions for the
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:19:00
Planning officer. Thank you
Is this a clarification point? Yeah. Thank you councillor Roger. Thank you chairman. I'm sure you can
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:19:10
Put me on this right part if I'm wrong
One thing is a HMO
what kind of
People are you gearing this page? Am I up for would you know I
I think again that's not a question of clarification, sorry.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:19:26
It's only a question of clarification of what he's discussed in his speech.
But you can certainly ask officers.
Yes, Councillor Ayers.
How many does it have of street parking spots?
Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:19:41
Are you happy for me to respond to that?
Yes, if you like, yeah.
Public Speaker - 0:19:46
Yeah, there are 23 car parking spaces all located at the back of the site for 23 rooms.
meet your car parking standards.
The frontage of the site isn't proposed
to accommodate parking and could be in response
to, sorry, a slightly cheeky response
to the other point that was raised.
Lots and lots of room for landscaping
and there is indeed a landscaping condition attached
recommended by your officers.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:20:12
So if there's no further questions of clarification,
we can then move to technical questions for the officer.
So we would like to start off.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you, Chairman.
I've got two questions.
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:20:29
Number one is in respect of the over concentration
of HMO properties in the area.
You recognise in your report that there are
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
at least eight other properties
which are HMO on the same road,
yet you make the conclusion
that it still would not be over concentration.
So how many properties would be required on West Wickham Road
for it to be deemed an over -concentration of the area?
That's my first question.
My second question is with respect to the green space and the amenity area.
You recognise in your plans that there's been no identification within the plans
of any private amenity space.
Is that something that isn't that something that is required under the
council policies and it appears that it's been assumed without any
confirmation from the owner of this property that the green area or the
grassed area towards the rear of the property is going to be used at a
private amenity space. My concern is that there's no guarantee that private
that amenity space will be used as amenity space
and wants to prevent the owner of this property
building upon that in the future
and thereby whatever possible assumed amenity space
that we have in the property no longer exists.
Oh yeah, thank you.
I'll take the first question first.
The over concentration of properties.
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:22:07
It is a valid point because it's part of the policy
dm23 that seeks to prevent an over concentration the actual open
concentration will be a judgement there isn't a prescribed percentage along the
road but I think what you have to bear in mind is the West although you've
identified think we've identified how many about six or so the West Wiccan
Road has got about 400 properties on it the West Wiccan Road is is very long
road so we took the view that that there are a number of properties along West
Rick and Road that yes are in an HMO use. Some of them are actually what's called small -scale
HMOs which have only up to six and they could go backwards and forwards between a single
dwelling and an HMO without planning permission. It's the larger ones of which there are a
few along the West Rick and Road but predominantly it's still single housing along there or flattered
developments and we don't think given the particularly the authorised use of the site
that this would actually result in a in an open concentration of other
residential uses it doesn't just specify HMOs bear in mind obviously the
authorised use of the property is an eight as a hotel moving on to the green
space yes that's a that is a valid point and the report tries to cover that point
we have actually if you look at one of the conditions in on the end of the
report we're asking for a landscaping scheme and part of that landscaping
scheme requires what should be there and part of that one of the requirements of
that is the to provide an amenity space for residents.
So if a plan is submitted under that condition,
then that and then that's approved,
then that would form part of the planning permission.
So therefore we could ensure that that private amenity space
were to be retained.
Does that answer your question?
Just before I, Councillor Collingwood,
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:24:00
before your question, just to point out,
There's like two parts to an HMO application.
One is licencing and one is the property side.
So the property one is we're dealing with,
which is the conversion of the property.
So it doesn't really affect antisocial behaviour
or anything like which is dealt with licencing.
I want a completely separate agreement.
And environmental health have teeth in that perspective
that they can in theory shut a HMO down
or even certainly reduce the years from five to two,
for instance, if they feel that there is antisocial behaviour.
So it's a different different block.
So I just thought I'd mention that.
And the second thing is just to remind
remind everybody that our highways officer
and other officers have given their verdict.
And if you remember, when it comes to appeals and things,
we don't go against our own officers at our peril.
So bear that in mind.
Anyway, Councillor Collingwood, thanks.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:25:04
Thank you Chairman, I'm very cognizant of that. I am slightly surprised because it's a full
application. Now when I read, I went back and checked right ahead, it does say
full application change of use right, so it wasn't an outline, there's no reserve
matters, whatever we've got is whatever we've got right. So I then go back to the
piece about 426 and 428 going to meet for future residents. We've been really
clear whatever we actually approve has to be high quality for those people who are going
to physically live there. A landscape condition to me is not the same as an immunity condition
because in 428 you said oh yes there's enough space but you've not actually said that you
must have x amount of space, private immunity space for these 23 individuals and actually
allocated out and so what should normally happen is that 67 square metres
should be divided out not a landscaping piece, a landscaping piece is a couple of
trees right. The private immunity space says actually top left hand corner is for
number one, top right hand corner is number two and where it goes so therefore
I'm not convinced your condition is strong enough or you have to have
additional condition that's specifically about private immunity space. We've been
really clear about that that if they're gonna have an HMO they have to have
private means space.
Going on from that, in 426, you talk about the fact
that there's a requirement for eight common rooms,
but there's only six provided.
Now I know it talks about three kitchens,
but a kitchen's not the same as a common room,
because a kitchen is prep work for making food.
A common room is for actually watching TV,
bonding with your families, and wider community.
So again, I'm surprised that that's been allowed
to be where it's deficient, because you clearly say
policy says it eight you're only gonna give six so I'm a bit confused things
it's a feels outline I go fair enough but it's full I'm going well hang on
either we're gonna follow policies and not follow policies so to be honest
there's like I get the highways bit have said 23 spaces enough my question would
be whether we could have a condition that says that the front element could
be visitor parking in addition to I don't know if we can the officers might
say no but it would make sense that the 23 people have car parking at the
rear that makes sense that's one for one and then the visitors then have parking
at the front which then goes to Councillor Haydays point this is okay
actually if you've got visitors family whatever visiting that it's all consumes
its own smoke then in terms of your additional bit about the NHS to me this
is physical growth because to Councillor Haydays point about the fact that hotel
is transient tourists these are people going to be living here so they could be
additional residents to where we physically have today.
That gets you to policy CP7,
that then says it's actual,
it relates back to development infrastructure
to support growth.
Therefore, your comment on the number addendum
or whatever it was called,
it says that it's not valid to have an NHS contribution,
I find rather strange.
So I would actually have a specific condition
back in on that, saying no, actually,
it is growth, does rate CP7,
and actually you would then have it for NHS growth because there will be 23 other people
using a doctor's surgery that don't use it today as an example plus also schools and everything
else that goes with it so therefore to me a 106 should have all of that listed because it's
clearly growth because there will be physically living there whereas at the moment it's a hotel
clearly tourists so those are my sort of queries and questions for clarification
at the moment I still am over -minded but I'm a bit surprised that
those having been dealt with in this application.
Right, thank you.
I'll take your points one at a time.
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:28:49
It's a full application because it's a change of use.
You can't have an outline application for a change of use.
I take your point about the amenity for residents.
I think workers' offices felt that there is space
at the back of that site to create a private amenity space.
I think it's necessary.
We thought that it's enforceable and reasonable
to put it on the landscaping condition.
Quite happy to put it on as a separate condition if that's what you would require. I think that that's perfectly reasonable
With regard to the common rooms and kitchens. We don't actually have a policy standard for that
but the HMO licence will do that and
Kitchens will be considered to be their community areas with me layers. They don't specify the difference
So as far as we're concerned we consider it meets that but that would have to go through the licencing test
Which is far more vigorous than the planning is anyway
Parking at the front, I take your point.
My concern about perhaps putting condition requiring that
is that we haven't asked the highway authority
whether or not you've got sufficient manoeuvring space
to, you certainly don't want to create a situation
where you've got a highway safety issue
and reversing back out.
And we've got sufficient parking on the front.
And they've got this motorcycle parking there,
but they could be able to turn anyway.
I take your point about the NHS.
We do have procedure within, amongst officers,
and we would consult the NHS as a standard consultee on a major application.
Any application, even for a knockdown one house, put in three or four, put in up to
eight, they're minor applications, they're not major applications, and that will deter
visible growth.
But so we've taken a, you know, where's the line about where we will then start to seek
contributions, and we've taken the view that they will start to seek them at a point where
it becomes a major application.
But for the reasons I've explained in the comments, this is not a major application,
and therefore we're not seeking.
It doesn't fall within the deficit.
Otherwise, where would you draw the line?
We've drawn the line at minor applications.
Up to nine houses on a site is a minor application.
Could produce more residents than in the 23 bed or 33 per.
Well, yeah, you could have eight four bedroom houses
on a site, nine four bedroom houses on a site.
Would have the same number of residents.
So from a planning point of view, there's a threshold.
It could well be that the NHS have looked at 23
and thinking they're 23 individual separate residential units which would
be courts but this is not this is this is one planning unit with 23 bedrooms
like I understand that I understand the argument it's just that where do you
draw the line as to what's reasonable what isn't reasonable but if it was a
major application we would certainly be seeking contributions just to clarify as
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:31:27
well it's not 23 people it's 23 rooms yeah there's a maximum of 33 people
which again still would fall within the scope of a minor application if it was
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:31:33
separate dwellings so we don't ask for contributions on any on every
application at this moment in time so that was that was where we we were
maybe we look at doing that in the local plan and change that say physical
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:46
numbers rather than major versus minor because actually as you say anything
above five is now deemed a local plan to be a tangible site so therefore in
terms of new local plan actually will be a different different calibration I
think that yeah but at the moment in time the local plan is only a very
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:32:01
draught stage and we can't take that into account we working with with the
procedures that we have at the moment so
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:32:12
and so I think I had councillor Hein first to do I hadn't realised when doing
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:32:17
the visit yesterday that the front of the building wasn't going to be used for
parking that all the 23 parking slots were at the back so is there opportunity
there to landscape part of the front and at least make it look more attractive to, because
at the moment the building itself isn't particularly attractive and the front is anything but.
So is there an opportunity to put something in the application to insist on some degree
of greenery at the front so that it can make it more attractive?
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:33:01
We've got a condition on condition five which seeks a detailed landscaping scheme and then we've required it shall include provision for additional planting
But we could put we could make that clear the additional front planting on the frontage or we could add those words in if that's what you
Back, I don't think would make a very attractive
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:33:17
Isn't a really good opportunity to do much landscaping with that and it's dangerous. It'll just end up being
We can make the condition more specific but I think that was why you know one of
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:33:26
the reasons doing it at the front would make it more attractive.
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:33:31
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:33:35
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:33:39
Councillor Roger. Thank you. Good question to the officer I couldn't see any
charging points for EV cars or does something like this development ask for
that and the other one is grey water harvesting or anything like
because obviously you've got 30 odd rooms or 23 plus times two you've got so
much water being used would that could we do that and the other thing is I'm
listening to my colleagues about the front development of car parks and
immunity space one thing is that when you're driving down a road you'd like to
see lovely gardens in the front but my worry is you might get people sitting in
front of the garden, you know, it won't look nice because of the rubbish being
generated and stuff, you know, washing lines and all that. We can't stop it,
they'll do it anyway, but that kind of image just dawns on me when I
listen to, you know, immunity space in the front. It's just one of those things.
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:34:49
Yeah, taking your points, and certainly, yes, electric car charging points, there's
condition four we've required that 23 electric to 32 amp electric car charging
points be installed in the car park before the the first occupation so that
would be in there with regards we've got a condition on a number eight which
requires them to achieve a water efficiency standard but this isn't a
new but this is just a conversion so we think that the water efficiency standard
is sufficient in the site I take your point about guns at the front but that
we've done to the landscaping scheme will be looking at what would be appropriate.
We can't stop people sitting on the front if they want to do so.
But I think I think there's an opportunity here to make that whole site front
and back more more visually acceptable to neighbouring residents
in the street, same, but also for the amenity of people who will be living in there.
Any other questions for the officers?
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:35:46
If not, would site members like to start the debate?
Councillor Sherwell.
Thank you.
Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:35:56
It is always difficult with these applications because I am instinctively understanding everything
that Councillor Hayday said and have some feeling of intellectual support for that,
if I can put it that way.
But we're in a position that we have to follow planning law.
And it may well be, and I have no evidence
to either in either direction, that the owner
of this particular site has intentions which may not
be intentions that we would like.
But we know that we can only deal with the application
itself.
We have this situation with people that carve up land into packages of nine houses to avoid having to put anything in the world.
So that's not a consideration.
What is really important is the anti -social behaviour side of things.
But again, that's not a planning issue.
It's an issue for colleagues in environmental health.
And I have to say, over the last few months, certainly in my end of the county, they've
got a lot more active because they've realised that whilst there are plenty of HMOs that
are properly managed, there are also a fair few that are not properly managed, and they
need to be suited.
and licencing comes in as part of that as well.
So I can't see an overall objection
on a building that exists
and that could already be used for that number of people
and in admittedly more transitory fashion being refused.
I do agree with what Councillor Collingwood said
on amenity, but I think the officer
has essentially accepted that.
And that is the other thing where I, well I agree with quite a few of the points the
Councillor Collingwood made, but they've been agreed with.
The question of the contribution to the health service.
I understand what you say about drawing lines.
What we have is a situation where you could have had up to 23 or 32 double rooms, very transitory people in there.
What you could have now, or what you would have now, is up to a similar number of, long term might be too strong a word, but certainly much longer than holiday.
Generally, the ones we've got in Aylesbury are people that are working on HS2, and they
stay there for a pretty long time.
And generally, I suspect the ones in Wycombe will either be doing that or will be working
on building projects or whatever, and will be there for a fairly long time.
So I think there is a burden on the NHS, which wouldn't have been there with a hotel, and
It is above the magic figure of 10, if you look at it in that light.
Now I can't argue what the legal robustness of such a condition would be, but I would
strongly suggest that it would be good if we could put such a condition in, because
I do believe that it is defensible.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:39:44
While this is a debate, I think it's probably a good idea if you come in on that one.
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:39:48
I'd certainly address the last part. We couldn't put a condition requiring that the applicant
or developer were to pay a financial contribution. That can only be dealt with by a legal agreement,
which is an agreement between two parties. So we can't deal with it by matter of condition.
We can't impose that on there. I hear what you're saying about the burden of the NHS,
But we wouldn't be having this debate because they're looking at the magic number of 23
If you were to knock that building down and put nine flats on there or nine dwellings on there
Which are three or four bedroom dwellings, you'd have the same number of people living on the site
That's why I think the threshold that we look at for seeking contributions is the major one so that there'll be ten
residential units on the site
over
And this falls below that because of the floor space
of the residential unit as itself
is less than a thousand square metres.
Thank you.
Councillor Collinwood.
Actually, sorry, before we go on Councillor Collinwood,
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:40:48
can I just have any, if any other site visitors
would like to speak?
If not, then just.
Add the point about,
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:40:58
Rather than seeing it as nine potential flats, I almost see it as 22 studio apartments, 23
studio apartments in the building.
But we can't see it as that because that's not what's been applied for.
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:41:15
They've applied for an HMO with 23 bedrooms in it, which is not quite the same thing.
A studio apartment would have its own facilities within its apartments, so we're looking
at it.
So 23 studio apartments would be a major application.
So we have a threshold.
Otherwise, you'd be asking for contributions
on any application that increase the number of population.
And we don't do that at the moment.
We don't have a policy basis for that or a requirement.
I know we've got the request in the AHS.
But I think if they knocked down that building,
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:41:44
they wouldn't put nine flats on there.
There'd be a lot more than nine went on there.
That's a big operator.
that that would be you look at the houses at the back that that mirror and
within the same floor plan as or as the as the hotel there would be at least 15
at least 15 flowers the only problem is that it's not in a policy at the moment
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:42:12
no so whilst we appreciate and your points are noted and it's something that
could go back perhaps to discussion in the local plan.
Just in my dealings with the ICB,
getting them to put money down for developments
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:42:24
is bad hard enough at the best of times.
So when they do and we turn it down,
it just seems a bit harsh.
Nevermind.
Thank you.
Councillor Collingwood.
So the Chairman, my point was,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:42:33
could we not put that as a formal informative
that's part of the reports, so it's a public record.
Now we can't enforce, we can't do legal agreement
at this stage because the current local plan
won't let us do that.
Now I think as collectively as councillors now
I need to go away and think actually how do we meet that practically for the new plan
going forward. But we have as an informative, so the, because the applicant will have seen
what the calculation and formula is from NHS, so I see what the requirement is. It's not
a massive contribution from the NHS are asking for, to be honest, in the scheme of things.
Therefore, at least they are fully aware of it and there's a public record that that's
the aspiration what we would like to see. And I think going forward, I think, make it
that they're lucky that if it was on the new local plan to be honest the
requirement they would have to be paying this plus more right so therefore any
new more other HMS go coming forward later on well that's good luck because
actually you'll be paying this plus plus plus plus right but doing an informative
you're not tying us to a legal agreement not tying us to a condition you know
means therefore it's an informative that gives you because the committee felt
really strongly about this point and therefore you know we know we can't
force it today but good luck for after the New York plan so that's acceptable
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:43:54
ask officers about that is that is that was that a legal issue sorry I was I've
Ray Martin - 0:43:57
been listening to the debate very carefully the point is we have set
thresholds in our guidance and this this falls under a threshold so we cannot
invoke a requirement for a contribution but I completely understand the issue
about it does place an extra burden on the NHS but so does one dwelling and if
we go down the line of saying committee were concerned about this would place an
extra burden are you asking us to put that informative on every single
application that creates new residential but the council Hines point is due to
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:44:37
scale if it's one dollar no you're kidding right no but that was silly right
but technically it's not quite akin to 23 studio flats but it's pretty more
akin to 15 but because of the technical nature of the HMO it can't be that if
that makes sense do you mean so therefore because of the scale of the
particular application that's what we're flagging it on this particular
application not as a blanket piece if that makes sense so that's why we're
saying look you've got around of the rules technically but in reality it's
actually if you looked at any other way around you actually would then become in
fall into being a major application if that makes sense so it's this site
specific right not not blanket I think that I think if you look at other minor
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:45:19
applications nine dwellings with four people in them would have 36 people and
and so this this would still fall within that intensive I know it's a I hear what
you're saying and but I just thinking this as far as we concerned this falls
below the threshold. Otherwise we would be having to ask for it on every single
application and we need to be clear to developers and to applicants at
what point that threshold kicks in and I think if we start applying it to minor
applications then it muddy sorters a bit. Well saying an informative rather than a
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:45:48
condition because informative gives you public record rather than it just being
noted. Well I think that there's a recording of this committee meetings and
Ms. Heather Smith - 0:45:57
that would be part of a public record.
I'm not sure what the value of an informative owner
on a particular, just say, well, you know,
you were lucky not to be charged with it,
or I don't quite see what value that would be.
We're not informing them to do something
or that they need to take something into account
on this particular application.
I think we'd be better off thinking of that
towards a new local plan, Councillor Collingwood.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:46:23
So it might be worth talking about thresholds
in the local plan. Councillor Collingwood. No I'm just saying it's um it could go in
the minutes that we debated it if you'd like it to do that. That would that would be acceptable.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:46:47
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:46:51
Yeah if we're in the minutes then at least it's probably a record thank you. I'm not sure who was
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:46:56
and listening to Councillor Hayde,
I think if you look at West Wickham Road,
I've lived all my life in Wickham
and I've been up and down.
West Wickham Road is no different to any other road
like where I represent Priory Road,
Benjamin Road, Roberts Road, they're all full of HMOs.
We can't stop, if they fill the legal requirements
and they tick the boxes, we can try
and somehow try and change policy at this moment.
We can't because the policy is set.
And if you go to West Wickham Road, you've got houses,
you've got HMOs, you've got hotels, you've got garages.
It's not just house, it's all mixed development there.
And we can't single this out because it was Clifton Lodge
and everybody knew it was Clifton Lodge
and everybody knew, you know, if you wanted a room
or something, you know, you rent a room there.
So I can't see no difference to that.
Coming to the parking, yes, there's a parking issue
all around Wickham and West Wickham Road,
but I think the local councillor should go to highways
or any town committee or something and say,
you know, we want double yellow lines.
His residents may not like it, but he can,
and then it stand to enforcement to enforce parking
on footpaths and all that.
That's what I'm trying to do in my area.
I know some of my colleagues will like what I've just said,
but it's the truth.
If it's ticking the boxes and we understand
what you were saying, Councillor Hayday,
and we wanna help, but if there is any leeway,
I can't see it, but if any of my other colleagues
skin and light in me you know that would be good but at this moment what I've got
in front of me and the other thing is we can only judge what's in front of us I
know Councillor Hayde said oh it could be you know a few years down the road
they could develop with this like this this it's one of those things we can't
judge you know something in the future we can only judge something that's in
will go with the recommendations of the office sale which is on page 13 number
seven but that's me listen to all my other colleagues
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:49:37
council behind the risk of sounding like a dog with a bone but the fact that if
there were nine properties the the calculation is 2 .5 heads per property so
that would be 23 and 1 1 -2, say 24, significantly less
than the 33 that we know will be filled in this building.
So it is going to have an impact on the health service.
And I think we should look at, if not now, but in the future,
at ways of ensuring that an HMO of this size
does contribute to the local NHS' support.
Thank you.
I think we don't know there's going
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:50:20
be 32 people in this capacity for 32. It's not a given but anyway we've taken
the point it's going to be minutied yeah okay. Anybody else any would like to
Cllr Michael West - 0:50:38
answer the debate? Councillor West. Thank you chair. I think it's good that this
committee's had the opportunity to actually express its misgivings about
the proliferation of HMSOs in this area and in other areas.
Unfortunately, I believe the committee
is relatively impotent when it comes to making
a decision on this application.
A few months back, we had an application
to turn a happy union in Loudwater into an HMO.
There was a stronger argument against that, I believe,
and there is against this one and we all know what the outcome of that was.
I believe therefore we have little or no choice in actually supporting the officer in this
application.
Thank you, Councillor West.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:51:32
Well the motion before us, sorry.
Based on the feedback we've had and the fact it's going to be in the minutes about the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:39
NHS piece, happy to support the office recommendations subject to the particular additional condition
we talked about where it would be private amenity space in addition to landscaping piece
and they will be two separate conditions not just under the landscaping condition because
I think Cass Hines point about the front I think you do need to make it a much more pleasant
location for people to at least come and visit in the first place and then actually people
living there actually need a private amenity space specifically and it needs to be conditioned
as such but why they're two different elements if that makes sense
but on a basis I'd be happy to support you. Okay so is there a condition we can put on that?
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:18
Ray Martin - 0:52:23
Yes, from the debate yes it was that but it was also changing the
wording of the landscaping condition if I read it correctly in terms of making
sure we get landscaping on the front as well so it would be adjusting the
landscaping condition to make it clear what we expect and adding a condition
with regard to retaining the amenity.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:45
of in role.
So the motion before us is approval and if I could have a show of hands
And the second I'm sorry, we need a proposal in the second. I beg upon so proposal
It will be based on the on the conditions imposed yeah, so based on that if I could have a proposal
Councillor Roger and a seconder council Collinwood. Thank you
So that motion is...
Oh sorry, I beg your pardon.
Sorry, everyone had their hand up.
So can I show of hands then?
In favour, yeah.
Okay, thank you.
So we move on to our next application.

5 PL/25/5309/VRC - Clubhouse, Whiteleaf Golf Club, Golf Club Lane, Whiteleaf, Buckinghamshire HP27 0LY

Feel free to go.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:54:51
So our next application is PL25 -5309VRC Whiteleaf Gold Club, Gold Club Lane Whiteleaf, HP27 -OLY.
I would like to hand over to Ian Zavala Beck, who will introduce this item.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ian Zabala-Beck - 0:55:07
The application is at White Leaf Golf Club, Golf Club Lane, White Leaf, for variation
of Condition 4, which is for materials attached to Planning Permission 24 -5 -05 -056 -FUL, which
which was for the erection of two 10 -metre high net fences,
one 45 metres long, the other 15,
to allow for the installation of black netting and posts.
The members have been provided with an update sheet,
which I hope that you've managed to have a look at.
There has been a letter that has been submitted
by the applicants,
which outlines the applicant's case.
This has actually been reported within my office's report
at section 4 .6, even though the letter has come shortly
after it was published.
For introduction, this application follows on
from an approved scheme for the erection
of the two 10 -metre high fences at Wylde Leaf Golf Club.
The application before the Planning Committee is a variation of condition of the approved scheme
specifically condition for to alter the colour from dark green to black
condition for of the approved scheme states
notwithstanding any indication of materials which may have been given in the application a
Schedule and all samples of the colour of the support polls for the netting to be dark green colour should be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority.
The approved development has been altered by the applicants and is subject to this variation
of condition application to alter the colour to black.
The variation on colour is retrospective as the poles and netting were ordered in black
and have been subsequently erected.
This error came to light due to a miscommunication internally with the members of the club and
is now subject to this application.
The colour choice is to make the structure less intrusive, minimise the impact on the
area, and the colour of dark green versus black would have a neutral impact on the area.
This application is before the Planning Committee as the application has been called in by Councillors
Gary Hall and Matthew Walsh who had concerns over the colour of black where it should be
dark green.
Plans have been submitted which are regarding the details of the actual netting with some
imagery, examples of black and green netting, technical data, photos of the poles prior
to the installation and the block plan which you can see on your screens before you.
During my site visit I took several photos, the first photo being the approach to the
netting across the fairway.
You will see in the centre of the photo,
there is one of the black poles.
The second photo, first section of the netting
on the corner.
Next photo.
This is another view of that same corner.
Next photo.
View along the tree line.
Next photo.
Views of the poles netting against the tree backdrop.
Next photo.
Views towards the trees with the netting directly in front.
Next photo.
View from further away.
Poles are in the centre of the photo.
Next photo.
These are green poles which are existing poles elsewhere within the golf course.
And the the next photo is the same photo, but just taken from a different angle of the existing green poles
Just to show you what else is on the course there
the key issues
The previous scheme permitted the erection of poles and netting the previous scheme was heard at the Planning Committee back in January
2025 the scheme was permitted subject to conditions
Condition 4 was added to submit details of the dark green coloured poles to be agreed
first by the Local Planning Authority.
The existing golf course comprises of black and green posts and nets, some of those which
I've already shown you, around the site.
Therefore, the use of black will not be a new introduction to the site.
There will be some visibility of the poles in either dark green or black.
This is evident when visiting walking around the site.
The impact of either dark green or black upon the national landscape is neutral.
The main consideration is whether the installed black colour is accepted by
councillors or whether the councillors still require the Coles to be dark green.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:00:25
That's it. Thank you. Can I just clarify something actually because I just wanted
to cheque the wording on the decision
of the previous permission, which was 24 -05056.
And that is just to say that item four says,
not withstanding any indication of materials
which may have been given in the application,
a schedule and or samples of the colour
of the support poles for the netting to be dark green.
So it actually says that we requested samples of the colour of the support poles for the netting,
which was dark green, but it doesn't actually specify that the poles should be dark green.
They may have supplied samples of it, but it wasn't a requirement at the time, was it?
Ian Zabala-Beck - 1:01:14
The requirement of that condition was to support the colour of dark green,
as there was an individual difference of interpreting what one person would
consider to be dark green to another person considering what the dark green
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:01:30
would be. But my point is that it says on here that to provide samples of the
poles, the colours, so it doesn't necessarily say that in the previous
planning condition the condition was for the netting to be green is what I'm
trying to say judging by the decision notice that that's how I interpret it but
That was just a question.
No, that's your condition.
I was going to ask you a question.
No, it was not the best worded condition.
Is that what it was?
We have no public speaking on this.
So I think we're going to go straight to technical questions for the officer.
So if anybody has any technical questions, please start with Councillor Raja.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:02:15
Having a look at the photos, was the netting up when you took those photos because I couldn't see it?
Yes, the nettings are up.
And what colour was it again?
The black, the ones that have been put up by black.
Thank you.
Councillor Collingwood.
I did do a site visit separately.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:33
Just to clarify, they are definitely in situ and they are definitely as laid out in the plan.
Just double checking that what we saw is it's not going to be higher, wider, taller.
Apart from the colour bit, it's exactly as being, so they're not trying to change it, it's all as it should be in effect, just the colour is the difference.
Okay, right, just double checking the last case.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:01
I think it should also just be pointed out that we had previously permitted black painted
metal things 10 -06 -17 -8 full black posts.
I did physically do the whole site visit and I did look at the other ones you saw there
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:03:20
and I did see the other ones there and the difference to me was the ones that were showed
in Greenview, Shoredon, the particular,
they're right in the middle of the golf course,
they're fully visible from miles around.
This stuff is covered off by trees.
So the only person I thought could actually have any impact
might be the person who lives in that new house,
brand new house that's been built.
I was like, well, but when you look at it,
it was then screened in effect by the whole of the trees.
So that was my bit.
In fact, I went to look at the wrong bit
until they told me, no, no, you've got the wrong piece
and it had to go around the corner, all right.
So yeah, so Chairman, Mike.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:57
So your question was about whether or not it was exactly the same?
Yes, exactly.
We've got to take that.
Any other questions?
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I'm just confused what difference it's going to make if it's green or black.
Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:04:09
Because I saw pictures from Alex and I was quite surprised saying,
brought this into the planning committee.
What difference it's going to make?
Can I just comment on this point?
Ian Zabala-Beck - 1:04:29
So what's the deal with the planning if they're black or green?
What difference is it going to make to the area?
Well, I can give you my opinion on that.
Ray Martin - 1:04:41
The opinion is if we had the right dark green, it wouldn't have made any difference.
And actually I think black is more recessive than any green would be.
But the point that I can see you're all a bit confused.
Why is this in front of you?
It's in front of you because the condition on the previous permission actually said it needed to be dark green.
And because what they've installed is not dark green, it was necessary to have this new application.
That's why it's before you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:12
If it hadn't been called in, it could have been done by delegated powers, couldn't it?
So that's why we're here, not because of...
Not because, but genuinely Heather and Ian and Ray could have dealt with it themselves, right?
Because, but it's because two local members who haven't turned up, you know, I'm going to
make my veins very no clue. It has been noted that the members have not turned up.
Yeah, I mean, do you want me to just stay with my piece about having done a site visit? What my
thoughts were or not? If we can just, if there's anybody got any technical questions of the officer,
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:05:42
let's do that first so councillor hind the likelihood is that after a year or
Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:05:47
two they'll be liking all over the the the the existing netting for those that
Ian Zabala-Beck - 1:05:57
actually attended the site is that we walked past the existing one and it was
very clear that there was you know things growing on it already there was
weathering both those
So really, you should go to site visit members now, and if there's no more technical questions,
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:06:14
and then perhaps we can, so, Councillor Sherwell.
Cllr Alan Sherwell - 1:06:21
Yeah, probably shouldn't say this, but when we were having a walk round in a discussion,
I was sort of reminded of the storeys you get about townies that move into villages
and complain about the church bells.
Golf course has been there since 1909.
It has every right to remain there.
Health and safety obviously is a consideration.
And the golf course has no problem with that being a consideration.
They have no problem with the fence being there which protects the garden of the new houses.
and which is the other house that's subjected is absolutely in a straight line too.
So you don't see the netting at all, you just see the posts.
They admit that they made a up over ordering the fence.
And we're left in that situation.
The fence clearly needs to be there to protect that gun.
It is phenomenally ugly, it has to be said.
but you can't see it from most places.
And at the end of the day,
you could, in theory, force them to go back
and put up something that was black
to confirm with the original condition.
But frankly, I don't see,
and having seen the green fence
that's up there on the other side of the site,
that putting it up in green would be any air -sugly
than what's up in black.
and
Should anybody appear against our refusing that condition? I think we would look very silly
To any inspector that was that was hearing that appeal
So, I mean, I'm quite happy to propose the officers recommendation that we accept the change
Thank You council council West
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:08:13
Just having been on the site visit. Oh
Cllr Michael West - 1:08:18
Well, everything else is approved anyway, but the only thing we're discussing is the colour.
And the fact is that we've got a 10 metre high, 40 centimetres wide pole, which is black, and it looks like a black pole.
Were it green, it would look like a green pole.
There is nothing natural about green, plain green, in the countryside.
It stands out just as much as any other colour.
Yes, so I suggest that actually we vote in favour removing this condition and I question whether you should have ever been
there in the first place
Thank You councillor West so
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:08:59
Where we have it unless anybody wants to add to the dialogue
We have a proposal
From councillor Sherwell to go with the officers recommended
Recommendation do we have a seconder
Councillor West.
Thank you.
May I have a show of hands in favour?
That's everybody.
Unanimous.
Thank you very much.

6 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:09:29
So we move on to Agenda Item Six,
which is date of next meeting,
which is Wednesday the 18th of March at 6 .30 p .m.
And item 7 is the availability of members to attend site visits.

7 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

If anybody would be able to say yea or nay.
That will be on Tuesday the 17th of March.
I will have to give apologies for the site visit definitely.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:09:57
I may not make it back from abroad on the 18th.
So if I can I will but I can't guarantee.
I'm subject to flying back on a plane.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:10:11
Thank you.
Mr Leslie Ashton
Democratic Services Officer
Buckinghamshire Council
View profile Mr Leslie Ashton