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

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 3rd March 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

Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Jonathan Waters

2 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Jonathan Waters

4 PL/23/1603/FA Englewood, 21 Amersham Road, Chesham Bois HP6 5PL

Share this agenda point

Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Supporter
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speaker - Supporter
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speaker - Supporter
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speaker - Supporter
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speaker - Supporter
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Cole Caesar
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Cole Caesar
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Matthew Hind
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters

5 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.

1 Apologies for absence

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:00

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

Planning Committee.

Just to inform you, I'm Councillor Jonathan Waters and I'm the Vice -Chairman but I'm chairing

this evening because Councillor Moore has the imminent arrival of her first baby so

is not available this evening and I'd very much like to send him and his wife

our best wishes on this very exciting time for them. I will send that from all

of you. Councillor Wilson. And Councillor Hogg has recently had a

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:00:48

baby last week. I had heard that as well because Councillor Moore has said how

tired he was so he's already had a bit of a briefing from Councillor Hogg.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:54

No, but it's nice to have some very good news.

Now to get to a couple of housekeeping items.

For your information, this meeting is being webcast and by entering the room you have

consented to be filmed.

However, if members of the public do not wish to have their image captured, please advise

the committee clerk and we will help to sit you in a place which will not be filmed. Also,

the fire exits are located at the back of the chamber, down the main stairs and out

of the front doors. Please follow me and we will congregate outside in the space located

over the bridge towards the roundabout. Hopefully we will not need to use that today but seeing

have quite a number of people in we definitely need to just note that. I'd

also like to announce that there has been a change to some of the committee

membership and send a warm welcome to Councillor Clive Harris and Councillor

Matthew Hind who have replaced Councillor Fiers and Councillor Gryphon.

Welcome very much to the committee.

Can we now move on to Agenda Item 1, which is Apologies for Absence.

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:02:19

Thank you, Chairman. We've received apologies from Councillors David Moore and Jackson Earley.

Thank you. Agenda Item 2 is Declarations of Interest.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:29

Does anyone have any Declarations of Interest to be made?

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:37

Councillor Roberts. Yes, I'd like to declare this as Item 1.

I can't remember which number it is. The one item that we're considering is in my ward.

But I haven't been involved in this previously and will approach this with an open mind at this evening's meeting.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:57

Thank you. This item was called in by a previous member who is no longer on the council, so is not attending to speak in that capacity.

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Agenda item 3 is to ask for your approval that I can sign the minutes of the previous

meeting, the East and South Buckingham area planning committee meeting held on the 3rd

of February, 2026.

All in approval?

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll just sign the minutes.

We now move on to agenda, sorry, Councillor season. Thank you, Chairman. Can I just please put on the note that I have been

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:03:56

Reached out by consultancy firm regarding this application as part of me informing this chamber

Fine, probably should when we get onto the item will set a number of

counsellors

Including myself have received

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:04:16

Communications from

residents and other individuals

So that will has been made clear to the officers previously

4 PL/23/1603/FA Englewood, 21 Amersham Road, Chesham Bois HP6 5PL

Okay, Agenda Item 4 is Application number PL, stroke 23, stroke 1603, stroke FA, Englewood

21, Amersham Road, Chesham Boys, HP6, 5PL. I would ask now hand over to Mike Shires who

Mr Mike Shires - 0:04:51

introduce the item. Thank you chair. So this application proposes the demolition

of the existing dwelling on the site and the erection of a single detached

building comprising one dwelling and five flats together with a detached

garage relocated to vehicular access and associated parking and landscaping. So

as the chairs just outlined this application was called to the Planning

committee by former Councillor Graham Harris and as per the

Constitution call -ins from former councillors are being honoured so hence

why it's here tonight. So the reason for his original call -in was threefold it

was that the proposal could set a precedent for further flat development

along this road, the lack of an increase in biodiversity and the frontage to the

main road comprising a large parking area. Those are the points he made. So I'd

I'd just like to make a couple of points in relation to those

and I'll explain a little bit more as we go through the plans in a second.

So the issue of precedent, as you'll all be aware,

is not strictly a consideration as every proposal must be assessed on its own merits.

And in terms of biodiversity, the application was actually submitted

before the mandatory 10 % biodiversity net gain came into force,

so it doesn't actually have to provide that.

Notwithstanding that, the applicant has incorporated a lot of additional planting and habitats,

including bat boxes and a bat loft in the garage.

And the ecology officer confirms that

an actual factor biodiversity net gain

would be achieved of almost 11%.

So that's an additional benefit,

even though it's not mandatory.

It's worth emphasising that Councillor Harris

did not raise any issues regarding the size

or design of the building and his calling.

So the application has been held in abeyance for some time.

As you're aware, the site lies in the zone of influence

of the Chiltern Beechwood Special Area of Conservation, the SAC.

And as the mitigation for the SAC has now been resolved,

the application can now progress to a decision.

There's a few updates since the report was published.

We've had several additional objections, 35 in total.

Some of those are from the same households and some from

the same objectors that are already summarised in the report.

So there aren't any wholly new points to cover and I'm aware that

several have been sent direct to members as well.

Just a few other points in terms of

the highways consultation,

the eagle -eyed amongst you might have spotted,

they've assessed the visibility splays

on the basis of it being a 40 miles per hour

speed limit on this road,

and of course it's not, it's 30 miles per hour.

But they've assessed the splay required

of 79 metres in both directions,

and they've said that's achievable,

so obviously it goes without saying

and if that's achievable then the display

from the 30 mile an hour road, which is 43 metres,

can easily be provided so it doesn't change

the overall conclusion.

There's a small typo in condition 13,

installed, dispelled incorrectly, apologies for that.

So I'll just propose to correct that.

And conditions nine and 10, which refer to the bat reports

and the tree reports respectively,

they require the development to be carried out

in accordance with the conclusions of those.

They both refer to the original report submitted in 2023,

but the applicant actually updated both of them

last year in 2025, so just proposed to amend the date

in those conditions as well.

And also just propose an extra condition,

which we've inadvertently left off to ensure

the three bat boxes and the bat loft in the garage

are installed prior to occupation of any of the units.

So I'll run through the plans,

but the recommendation is to defer and delegate the application to the director of planning growth and sustainability to grant planning permission

subject to the conditions and the report in front of you and the

Completion of a legal agreement to secure mitigation for the Chiltern Beach Wood sack

And if the legal agreement cannot be completed then the application is refused for that reason

So if I just take you through the plans as a reminder

First of all the site location plan so this just obviously shows the site

outlined with the red line and just fronting onto Amersham Road to the east

and then this shows the existing site plan so that's the existing building

within the plot it's one of the smaller properties in the area and an unusually

large gap just to the southern side as you can see there. This is the proposed

site plan. So starting from the front the existing access is to be closed just

there, new access is to be formed just here along the southern side boundary

leading to a new parking area there with a garage there and a bin store and a

frontage. The vast majority of all the landscaping along the front is being

retained. I've got a separate tree plan just to show you a couple of trees which

are being removed later on. And then the building itself is proposed there with

the dwelling on the northern side and the five flats in the southern side of

that with different garden areas to the rear. Just as a comparison I've just

overlaid the existing building on there in blue so you can see the difference.

the building line along the front is largely the same, the depth is

obviously greater but not as much as it might first appear and most of the

additional bulk is as you can see on the southern end where the large gap is

at the moment. So these are the existing elevations of the building, the front

elevation is on the top left just there. This shows a street scene drawing,

so the three buildings across the top are the proposed building in the middle and the two

neighbours on either side. If you can see the red dotted line just there that shows the outline of

the existing building. You can see height wise it's the same, maximum height some of it is slightly

lower than the existing. It's a similar relationship to the property on the

right hand side as you look at that and obviously there is more additional bulk

on the other side but there is some quite reasonable spacing to both side

boundaries. And then these show the proposed elevations so it's been

designed very much in an arts and crafts style. It's steeply pitched roofs, local

materials, a mixture of facing brick hanging tiles and weatherboarding. It's

good to see prominent chimneys as well, they're sort of important for the

character of this area and for this style of dwelling as well. It's also nice

to see the window arrangement, the windows getting smaller as one goes

higher up the building which we're forever telling applicants to do, we

rarely get that submitted so it's nice to see that in a building. In terms of

side elevations there are some solar panels here to the southern side and there are some roof

lights as well to both side elevations and this is the rear elevation just down here in the bottom left

this shows the front boundary treatment so at the top you can see the the fencing gates

proposed along the frontage those of you that have attended the site will know there is

a fence taller than that already on the frontage with the landscaping behind.

And then this just shows the plan of that particular area along the frontage as well

with the gates set back five metres from the edge of the carriageway which is what

highways always look for so they raise no objection to that. And then we've just got

the elevations and floor plans of the detached garage at the top and the cycle store and the

instal below that and then I put the floor plans in here appreciate you can't

see some of the detail on there but just a highlight in red on the right hand

side of you as you look at the floor plans so that's the northern half of the

building that's the dwelling so that spans the ground and first floor from

the additional bedroom in the roof space and the five flats are arranged as you

with the blue dotted lines, so there's two on the ground floor, the communal entrance

in the middle, two on the first floor, and then that's the second floor plan and the

roof plan, and again that's the fifth flat in the roof space and an extra bedroom serving

the dwelling show outlined in red.

So this is the tree plan.

The new access is just here, so there are four trees in total which again a vast majority

being retained. The purple lines show tree protection fencing which will be

erected prior to any works starting as governed by one of the suggested

conditions and also at the back as well just around the major trees on the site.

So there are two trees going down, being felled down in this corner.

They are very small trees. There is one on the side of the bin store there

which is a silver birch tree.

It is very lopsided, those of you that went on the site

visit will have noted that.

And then a smaller tree as well,

just to the side of the building there,

where the extra footprint would be.

And this shows the proposed landscaping.

So the sort of purple areas are additional hazel scrub,

which is particularly valuable to wildlife.

and the green cloud shapes, if you like, or the new trees which are to be planted.

So there's several along the front there, either side of the new pedestrian path.

A couple here just near the entrance, some more down the side and some further back there

and around the rear garden as well.

And I've just got a few photos and aerial views just to show you a bit of the character of the area.

So this is the site outlined, the red dotted line.

It is a spacious area along, there are several different uses actually along Amersham Road,

it's not wholly residential dwellings, there are a couple of schools obviously,

there's a church as well just here further along.

One of the points that Councillor Harris made when he originally called this in

the extent of the hard surfacing and I just wanted to point out proportionally it's really not any

greater than a lot of the areas of hard surfacing that afford some of the other dwellings there in

terms of the proportion of the frontage of the plot that's covered. And again that's just showing

it a bit more of a 3D image. The red line is, so this is supplied by the applicant, the red line

has shifted slightly to the right as you see it there but that gives you an idea of the dwelling

and its surroundings. That's just blown up a little bit.

This is a photo taken yesterday from the site visit.

That shows the front of the dwelling.

One of the trees, that's the tree to come down to the side.

There isn't currently much of a driveway, or if there was,

it's very overgrown there at the moment.

That's where the new parking area would be, a ford of that.

Another photo just showing the front. It is in quite a dilapidated state at the moment, the property.

That's looking south towards the boundary of number 19, just to give you an indication of the landscape in there.

That's from the rear garden looking north towards the rear of number 23.

so the proposed building would not come materially closer than the existing on that side.

And that's another photo of the rear.

And then a couple of photos just showing it from the front,

so that's the front boundary from the highway just showing the level of screening and landscaping

that there is there at the moment. This is a wider image, this is taken from

Google Maps in order to get a wider image. It's recent from March

last year, just showing the plot frontage as a whole. And then looking down the

street the yellow arrow shows, or the blue arrow shows roughly where the

dwellings going. The yellow arrow is the existing access which would be removed

next to the big street tree and the red arrow is approximately where it would be

going the new access and then looking the other direction same again yellow

arrows existing access and red is proposed so that concludes presentation

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:18:25

and thank you very much we now move on to public speaking we have three public

speakers today. We have Councillor Mark Yeomans from the Cheshire Boys Parish

Council, Stuart Watson as an objector and Nick Baker as the applicant and the head

teacher of the school. When we call you to speak just so you're clear you

Each will have three minutes.

I don't know if you've spoken before.

Up here, the light will go on.

It starts on green when you start to speak.

It'll go to amber, and it'll go to red.

Once we get to red, I will stop you

even if you're in mid -sentence, because the time will

be up at that point.

You will then, if any of the members

wish to ask you any questions on what you've actually

said in your statement, then they

do that once you've spoken. Okay if we could start with Councillor Mark Eumans

when you're ready. Thank you and thank you for the opportunity to address the

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:19:46

committee this evening. My notes very much refer to the position the parish

council took three years ago when this application first came forward. We

believe that this application should have been rejected at source, and we are disappointed

that the planning officers have pursued this with the applicant for so long.

What you see before you in the presentation that Mr. Shias has given us is a transformation

of a small family house into an intensive complex for over 20 adults and 10 cars. This

This is a commercial development for the staff and teachers at the school, and we believe

this should have been roundly rejected at the beginning of the process and not this

evening.

The Paris Council essentially opposed the conversion of this and similar plots on the

basis of overintensification, the loss of family housing, and a fundamental change to

the neighbourhood.

The neighbourhood is characterised by large Edwardian family villas that are built in

the 1920s and have been lived in by families ever since. It's disappointing when we lose

that type of housing stock from this area. Our fundamental objections were that the proposed

block of flats conflict with local planning and with local neighbourhood plan estimates.

Previous applicants have been rejected and there are Bucks County Council

precedents for rejecting blocks flats this size. The most recent one local and

in this vicinity was at 36 Stanley Hill on the corner of Clare Park where the

council itself rejected because of over intensification. We also have concerns

about the traffic. The plans show 10 locations for cars. The nature of the young people who

will use this building, if they have cars, there will be more than 10. The access to

a very busy A road is across the pavement and at peak periods, parents and children

are walking to and from the two schools that Mr. Shire has mentioned. So there's actually

a health and safety concern about the number of cars that might enter and exit this property

when school children are walking on the pavement. And our final concern is that we actually

disagree with the presentation that Mr. Shias has given you in that the proposed development

significantly increases the bulk and height of the building and that then impinges on

on number 23 and number 19, Amersham Road, impacting their privacy. We are fundamentally

at odds with the report you have received from the officer and ask you to reject.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:22:51

Thank you. Members, have you got any questions that you would like to put?

Sorry, I have one from Councillor Mark Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:23:04

Yes, I think some of this discussion was around the elements of the character of the area.

I was just wondering if you could clarify which particular features of the proposed

development you think are not matching the character of the area?

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:23:23

So the neighbourhood is characterised by Clifton Road and Chiltern Road, which were developed

in the 1920s. They're arts and crafts properties. They're designed for family life, typically

mum, dad, and two, three, four, five children. They have large gardens, and the owners of

those properties, maintain those gardens to give it a semi rural country

appearance and you know the council would wish to preserve that in the

Cheshire and Boy's area.

Councillor Martin Tait.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:23:59

Yes thank you very much. I mean just to say I've had representation in writing from both the

applicant and from objectors so again just to have that noted. I mean I would

just say we are very constrained as a committee by planning law. I mean the

days have long gone when we could just sit here and make a personal decision on

whether we liked or disliked a particular application. The law now

constrains us very heavily in terms of what we can decide and how we can decide

it. And also recent changes in the national planning policy framework again

have further constrained the grounds for decision -making by committees. So I just

want to put that out there because people misunderstand the ability of

planning committees to make decisions and on what basis they can make them. We

can only make them in line with the national regulations and on planning

considerations. So my question is on the scale of the development you say that

it's much higher. On the slide that we saw from Mr. Shires it appeared to be the

the same height as an adjoining property.

Is that correct or not?

You must follow what you believe.

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:25:13

When I looked at the same picture,

I judged it to be higher.

That's why the red line is there,

because you can see the red line because it's above.

I just wonder if we could see that again,

because it's an interesting point,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:25:26

a quite a moot planning point.

Mr. Chair, at the right point, I'm not asking to do it now,

but I think it would be useful to understand

whether the height is substantially higher than the other properties in the area or whether it is at the same height as an adjoining property

but clearly higher than

the other adjoining property

It looks to me to be very similar in height is that a fair observation

Yeah, though you would recognise that it's a three -storey property with

flats in the in the Reeves

I absolutely understand the bulk.

Which is the privacy issue.

I'm sorry, just on the point you made, though,

about the scale of development and the height,

which was your point, it does appear as if the height

is similar to the adjoining property,

but the bulk is much greater, I understand that,

and it is nearer to adjoining properties.

Thank you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:26:21

I think, just to clarify, looking at the picture,

the height is the same or less than the current height,

property that's there there is a slight difference between the properties either

side actually if you look at it I think that's the point the red line is about

the actual shows the outline of the previous property sorry the current

property that's there and actually is lower or the same height when you

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:26:50

actually look at it sorry Jimmy I'm mostly on the remedial class in this I

understood from the presentation and where there were two properties one

either side and I thought the new property was shown and I thought it was

this a similar height to the one to the left in the presentation but higher than

the one to the right in the presentation am I correct in my understanding mr.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:27:16

Shires is nodding yeah that's correct so I think it's the red line which I was

trying to make the point about which is actually just showing the old the

Current house is what the left red line is actually showing on that on plan you've seen

The houses of the house the other side I get that but the red line was mentioned so that's why I've

highlighted what the red line is about

Council hi

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:27:41

You mentioned in that there was a block of flats

Close by within I'm guessing within a mile of this one that was rejected

Was that a block of flats? When I look at that, I don't see a block of flats.

I see flats integrated within a house. Were these similar?

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:02

It was similar. It was an Edwardian house that would be demolished,

garages placed at the rear, and six flats across three storeys.

Integrated within the same style as before, OK.

Yeah.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:28:16

You also were concerned about the level of traffic, the extra traffic that was being generated from there.

But if most of the people living there are going to be working at the school which is 50 yards away, is that not, they're not going to drive to?

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:37

So my counterpoint would be why are there need for ten parking spaces?

a future concern is at some point it may be that this property is sold to a

private owners and when that happens what constraints are there to the

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:28:55

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:59

traffic. Speculation that's the root cause of the concern. If it were on the

school site they would clearly not need car parking because they would walk to it

by putting it outside the school site,

I'm then puzzled as to why there's any need for car sparking.

So therefore I'm concerned about the future of the site

and the potential risk of cars going in and out.

Can I just interject?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:29:22

The site is not being considered, as far as I'm aware,

under the circumstances as accommodation for,

though it is stated in some way that might be what it would be used for,

accommodation for teachers.

but the application is actually being considered as what it is, which is a house, a four bedroom

house and five flats.

But as far as I'm aware, there isn't any kind of covenant or we don't do covenants anyway

that is about it actually being totally guaranteed that it will be for the teachers.

There is a mention about it, but that's not how we're assessing it as a committee.

to assess it in its own right as a building of five flats and a house.

On one of the other items, I need to just get Mike Shires to clarify about the application

that you mentioned.

Thank you, Chair.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:30:25

Yes, just to clarify on the previous – and it was stated that there was a previous refusal.

There wasn't, it was a previous application which was withdrawn by the applicant in January 2022,

so there was no decision actually made. Yes, we did have concerns about it, hence why it was

withdrawn, but it was very different. It was for the demolition of the dwelling, subdivision of the

plot into two distinct plots and the erection of two buildings, one comprising a dwelling and one

with six flats. So it was very different in terms of the layout of the plot because it was subdividing

the plot clearly into two and having two buildings here which is what we felt was

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:31:04

objectionable as officers. Thank you I just thought those

clarifications needed me. I have no other questions from members so thank you very

much. We'll now ask Mr. Stuart Watson to speak again is the you have the three

minutes you'll see the light come on when you speak and at the end if there

any questions on your statement there'll be time for that so when you're ready.

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:31:32

Good evening. The key issue before members is whether the six dwellings on

one plot within a designated established residential area of special character

preserves the low -density spatial pattern that the policy H4 seeks to

protect. The adopted development plan remains the primary basis for decision

making and policy H4 continues to form part of the plan unless until it's

replaced. The question for members is therefore whether this proposal accords

with that policy. This part of Amersham Road is defined by a consistent spatial

pattern, large detached weddings each occupied by a single household set

within generous landscape plots with clear separation between buildings and

landscape dominant frontages. This is the character that the designation is

intended to protect. This proposal would introduce six separate residential units

onto a plot that currently only accommodates one. This increase in

residential intensity would inevitably increase comings and goings, vehicle

movements and the extent of frontage parking which are required to serve

multiple households. A typical large detached dwelling on a comparable

comparable plot might accommodate two or three vehicles. This proposed

proposal provides parking for 10, permanently replacing landscape frontage

with hard standing. The existing plot is currently 75 % soft landscaping. Under the

proposed layout that would be reduced to around 20%. That represents a

fundamental shift in the balance between built form, hard standing and landscape.

I recognise the need for additional housing, however Policy H4 exists to

ensure that such need do not result in the incremental erosion of the area's

defining characteristics of low density and spacious plots.

Decision is therefore not about design or housing numbers,

it's about whether increasing occupation

from one household to six within a designated area

genuinely, genuinely preserves its character.

In fact, if that level of intensification

is considered acceptable here,

what meaningful protection will H4

continue to provide. I therefore respectfully ask that the

acumen be refused such a system would be entirely consistent with the established

application policy of H4. Thank you. Thank you. Any members who would like to ask a

question?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:34:31

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:34:39

Councillor Tett and then Councillor Roberts. Yes I mean first of all I

completely accept that this is a significant change to the plot. I

completely understand that from the pictures we've seen. The landscaping at

the front you say at the moment it's about 70 % it will be reduced about 20%.

Again from the presentation we've just seen the majority of the trees as I

understand it would be retained that there's a big tree I think to the right

which is you know one of the main features of the property and I'm just

wondering maybe it's a question to Mr. Shires as well as to yourself which is

the the other landscaping at the front I mean is there is there hedging I'm just

trying to understand to what extent the comment and it's clearly more

hard -standing than there was I completely get that but to what extent

is the semi -rural aspect of the road maintained by the retention of the trees

and any any hedging I don't mind who answers the question maybe Mr. Shires

could answer it and maybe then the gentleman might want to just you know

have an opportunity to respond to my question at your discretion Mr. Chairman.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:50

I think probably should should ask keep the questions for the officers. I

understand and that's why when I said it I said at your discretion. If we could

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:35:57

hold on. So if I can ask the question then to the gentleman, do you accept that the

retention of the tree and the other retention that is described in the

application retain some aspect of the semi -rural nature of the road or do you

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:36:18

believe that is removed entirely by the proposed frontage? Well I think and I

think it's a reasonable position quite fundamentally this is a completely

different proposition to what's around here it's a it's a it's a it's a dense

residential proper occupation the landscaping and the hard core it's been

measured off the plans so it's going to be a good approximate and so that's the

key point it seems to me just not fundamentally the problem is that we

were putting six residential units you know in an area that was what was only

and there's no other dwellings like that. The air is characterised by large

buildings with single households set in general spots.

Does that answer your question?

Not really if I'm absolutely honest with you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:37:17

But I feel your passion and I completely understand the general point you're making.

We're having to look at it as a planning committee which is a different perspective.

But thank you for your answer.

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:37:30

I am trying to be objective about it because I'm looking at it from the you know

The planning guideline and particularly h4 and that's why that's really what I'm relying my on my objection

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:42

Thank you. We'll also come back on h4 when we get to the questions of the officers, which is after public speaking

councillor Roberts

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:37:53

Yeah, I'll be brief because I think my points have been covered but I will just ask the question on in relation

I am familiar with the residential area special character and policy H4.

I have it in front of me.

I was just wondering whether you could highlight which are the most specific elements of the

character of H4 policy that you think are most egregious in this application that you'd

wish to highlight.

Ah, okay.

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:38:18

I just need to remind myself of H4

and I think I've got it here, so let me just, if I may.

Okay, so if I go through the features of H4,

page 4. The plot size for any new dwellings should be similar in shape and

size to surrounding plots. It isn't similar in shape and size to

similar to the existing properties. Each plot should front an existing world in a

way that matches nearby development patterns. I don't think that, I mean

Visually, there may be some common features,

but the development pattern is quite different.

It's a much larger building

and it doesn't follow the same pattern.

Because of the size of it,

the position of the dwelling within its plot

and spacing between its buildings

doesn't reflect the prevailing character nearby.

Sorry, if I could just interrupt.

I was, rather than going through all the points,

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:39:39

I was just wondering if you were able to highlight

which of the elements of the items in policy H4

are the most significant harmful in this application?

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:39:54

Well, I would say probably is the form

of the residential development.

And it should be either detached or semi -detached,

but this is not consistent with the form

of residential development there.

Okay.

I think that is probably the biggest deviation from age four.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:40:16

I don't think there's any further questions.

If we now move on to Nick Baker, who is going to talk as the applicant.

Thanks very much.

My name is Nick, Nick Baker.

Public Speaker - Applicant - 0:40:32

I'm headmaster of the Beacon School and have been since September 22.

I grew up in Amersham so I'm very familiar with the area. I didn't attend a Beacon but I'm familiar with the

local schools and local setup there

The Beacon School educates just shy of 500 children

We have 420 families

We have a workforce of just shy of 150 people and we regularly

Contract local businesses to maintain and update the facility of the school

The school has a very strong reputation, not just locally but also nationally.

It's widely recognised as one of the preeminent schools in the country, not just in the local area.

And the public perception of the school, from the parents at least, is very strong,

as it is from all the other senior schools that we feed and the pre -preps that we feed.

We acquired this property in 2021.

It had been uninhabited for six years before that and as Mr. Shires correctly pointed out,

we just would draw the initial application for two properties and we have modified that into

one property which I actually think is a really attractive property. I think knowing the properties

on that road and also on Chiltern Road and then on Clifton Road, I think it's a really sensitive

build and I think it really fits in with the landscape. The current property is a

real blot on the landscape and has been now for ten years so I think that the

school which is not a letting agent you know we are we are looking to to create

dwellings here which hopefully our staff can benefit from. Amersham and

Chaffsham Boys is not a an easy place to find property particularly for young

teachers and lung educational professionals so hopefully that will allow them to come into

come into the area. The school is successful it tries to do the right thing when we did modify

this plan we did hold a public meeting for local residents I have a little network of 26

email addresses where I invite those members of the local community to to the school and to update

them on things that are surrounding the school so we do engage with the local community we want to

be good neighbours. In the case of this planning application, we absolutely want to be good

neighbours. We want to develop local property to make sure it is in keeping with the local

area and for the local community to be proud of the beacon and the way it operates. That

is absolutely the main intention of the school. I hope that councillors look to approve this

planning application.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:43:11

Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee?

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:20

I again tread the line because I'm conscious of something you said but my question goes

to the applicant. It says in the report in Para 533 that there has not been any offer

of any form of legal agreement that would actually bind those flats for use by teachers.

Obviously one of the concerns that local residents have is that you'll build these

and then at some point in the near future you'll just sell them off. Why

has this school not offered a legal agreement to that effect? A sub question

later to the officers is the Chairman has said we don't do that sort of thing

yeah I'd like to know why we don't do them and when that decision was made but

just purely to the applicant, why have you not offered that agreement?

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:44:10

The school's not a school, it's an educational premises, it's not a letting agent,

it's not looking to do that, but I would just give you the example of on

the site at the moment there is a head's house, there is a house that's for the

headmaster, I don't live there, I live in Birkham St, with my family, I was living

there when I was appointed and I chose not to live there, so we rent that out to

parent of the school. One of the conditions of my when I put myself

forward for the job was asking do I need to live there? Is it part of my contract

I need to live there? And the government's very clear that it wasn't. And I don't

think the school wants to be tied into those sorts of arrangements because it

wouldn't have that flexibility. But you understand, sorry if I may, Chairman, just

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:44:52

the concern of the local people is you get this permission, you have the flats,

You say they're for teachers and then within a year or two you found a lot of reasons why actually the teachers don't need them

And they're just sold on the market. So that's the concern local residents have I understand that concern

Your your proposition is these are desperately needed for teachers and yet there's a reluctance in any way

To offer any form of legal undertaking that ties them to staff at the school whether they're teachers or other staff

I just wanted to understand the rationale for that

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:45:26

I think it comes back to there just need to be dwellings available.

The site is not in the school's footprint. It's 50 yards down the road.

So I think that's why that was put into the platting application, that there was nothing that was stipulated for specific staff.

But the intention is the larger one is meant to be the headteacher's property.

So the one that the large one that's meant to be the head teachers property

and then the other flats are meant to be for other staff.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:46:00

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:46:06

Any further questions? Councillor Matthew Hyde. You mentioned there's already a

house on the site for the headmaster which you chose, you know,

and understanding we're not willing to live there.

What will happen to it if you decide that the new house being built on 21

should be the headmaster's house? What will happen to the old one?

Is there any plans to knock it down?

We have an existing planning application that we registered just before Christmas.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:46:34

To do what, sorry?

To change it into an early years setting.

Oh, okay.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:46:46

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:46:51

Yeah, one of the key things in this is the section 106 agreement.

I was just wondering if you could say something about where you're at with that, what the situation is and status of that development of the section 106 agreement.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:04

Oh, I'm gonna have to plead ignorance there. Can you give me a bit more colour on what the section 106 is?

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:47:12

Well this is for the the Sang and Sam. Beachwood. Beachwoods.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:20

Yes so that is why so we were waiting for Beachwood for this to

for this to come through so we I understand that there's a property or

there there's an area that's down Whiteline Road is that is that is that

the correct I've got to be honest I don't know too much about the exact. I

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:47:39

question exactly in terms of to the officers actually because they will have the detail

of exactly how it operates. I'll come back on that one.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:53

I have knowledge of what the school does in the broadest sense but sometimes the technicalities

and planning applications are not my day to day.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:48:01

So that's what we can ask about the requirement and how that's going to be fulfilled which

which is what would be signed up for and agreed and delegated powers.

Any other questions?

Thank you. We'll now move on.

I think the point which I was trying to make earlier

and probably was the reason that as a committee

we have to look at this as an application,

not for dwellings to provide provision for teachers

because that is not something that is being offered.

So that was the point I was trying to make earlier.

And the other point I said the word covenant, we don't do covenants because covenants are

not a planning item.

Legal agreements are, so that was, so we could do that.

But that hasn't been offered.

So for today, at this committee, what we are actually looking at is an application as it

is for dwellings under normal planning applications.

It's not for some form of specialist use

because that is not what is actually being provided.

So we have to look at what we've got

in the papers before us.

That was the position.

Now, any questions?

I think Mr. Tett would like to ask a question.

Thank you, Chairman, for your clarification.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:49:21

I was very concerned when you said,

we just don't do that sort of thing.

If so, I'd like to have known when that policy was agreed and by whom.

I'm aware that, for example, Chiltern District Council, which preceded us, did have various

legal agreements on the tenure of properties, which it gave permission for.

So I was puzzled by your comments, to be frank.

So it would have been possible, had it been offered, yeah, to have had a legal agreement

that constrained the occupancy of these properties to staff in a broad sense

don't necessarily have to be the headteacher or teachers there are lots of

staff I think there are 150 staff at the site but that was neither offered nor

requested by our officers at the council I just wanted to confirm that to be the

Mr Mike Shires - 0:50:14

case yes thank you for the question um essentially I'm in the short answer to

is there is no such agreement because we didn't regard it as necessary simply

put there's no need for it as we've assessed it on its own merits as

dwellings and we consider it to be acceptable in general terms you know any

conditions or planning obligations legal agreements do need to comply with very

specific and strict tests set out in the MPPF which you'll be familiar with to

require a section 106 here to restrict the tenure just wouldn't comply with

those simply because there's no need.

What would be the justification for that?

If for example this property was right in the middle

of the school site and you wouldn't want to see

sort of open market dwellings there,

then yes of course that could justify no reason for example.

But given where this is, there isn't really any need for it

and it wouldn't meet the test.

So just to confirm we did not request one

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:51:12

and therefore one was not offered.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:51:21

I would just echo that it's not relevant to planning so there's no the occupancy

of the of the units would not present a planning concern that would need to be

overcome by a planning obligation

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:51:37

I hear those words but I would have thought it a relevant consideration

that if you could actually if one was offered by the applicant which we could

take into account that overcame concerns from the parish council and local

residents that there would be no legal obstacle to having one rather than being

a planning requirement which is I think what the officer has just said. I just

want to confirm that if one was offered we could accept it as part of it as

opposed to us requiring one as part of planning conditions, planning permission.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:52:09

If one was accepted it could not be a basis for issuing planning permission.

Agreed, but it would be parallel to it.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:52:19

There is no objection, I just want to make it absolutely clear, there would be no objection

to a legal agreement between the school and the council that required those premises to

be occupied by staff at the school.

That would not necessarily be a key planning consideration, I understand that, but one

legally could be put in place.

Is that correct?

and

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:52:42

Legally one could be put in place, but it's not relevant to planning so it couldn't it

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:52:50

Yeah, I think the key thing it actually is not going to be relevant to this committee in terms of make a decision

we need to be making decision on the merits of the building that is in front of us and

That is what we're going to make the decision on and if something is offered

That's great. It's not there. It's not off to this point, but it also wouldn't be a

planning ground to make a decision on.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:53:19

Yeah, I have quite a few questions of clarification, if I may.

You might want to interrupt me and give someone else a go and come back to me if you think

I've had hogged things too much.

That's fine.

So the first one is about this policy H4, which is the policy in the local plan that

relates to residential areas of special consideration.

Now in the report, I don't see much articulation

of how this application matches up against the eight points

that are listed in policy H4.

So I was wondering if you could clarify that for us

because I've got the policy in front of me

and it says that new dwellings require

each of the following criteria to be met and in particular that I think concern

was alluded to by one of the speakers item six that the form of residential

development should be maintained in terms of dwellings being detached semi

Mr Mike Shires - 0:54:31

detached or terraced yes so if I just take a brief step back from that

initially and just refer to a paragraph in the MPPF which is paragraph 232 which

says essentially the important part of that says due weight should be given to

existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the framework

with the MPPF the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the

the greater the weight that may be given.

So in a nutshell, I mean policy H4 is quite old,

obviously it dates from 1997, it is very restrictive,

you know there are sort of eight criteria there,

which the wording of the policy does say,

you know they should all be complied with,

is quite directional.

But time has moved on a little bit since then

because of the MPPF, because of different policies therein,

and it's not that level of detail and restriction is not really supported by the MPPF. So when

you actually weigh up the weight that you give to that policy that really diminishes

it.

So I would say the weight you could give to policy H4 in terms of the individual criteria

is quite limited. Obviously the aim of the policy is to sort of retain the spacious character

of areas which is a fundamental issue in terms of all design policies that we've got, CS20,

GC1 and what's set out in the MPPF and the National Design Guide, but it's just the individual

criteria which carry limited weight.

Okay, so if I can clarify that then.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:56:02

The application doesn't in my mind seem to meet the policy H4 on that particular point

because with flats, flats don't meet that criteria six.

But I think what you're saying is the MPPF is more recent

and that means that that doesn't carry weight

in the same way that policy H4 doesn't carry weight now

that it did when it was cited.

Is that what you're saying?

In a nutshell, yes.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:56:38

I'm not certainly not diminishing the importance

of good design and it's always been beefed up over the years,

especially so what I'm saying is the actually individual restrictive criteria

policy h4 are not the sort of criteria that are necessarily carried forward

you know certainly into the MPP air for more recent policies so the overall

consideration of good design is obviously still there but less weight

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:57:06

just applied to the individual criteria if I could touch on one other related

point which was about the the heritage listing which is also relates to the

character of the development as well I believe so this seems a little confusing

in the paperwork because we've got a reference to it having been removed from

the local heritage list but we've also got a heritage officer report that is

recommending objection to it and so I just wonder if you can clarify that what

Mr Mike Shires - 0:57:41

that's all about yes of course so when we originally consulted the heritage

team originally this particular building was included on the council's local

heritage list due to its age architectural and historical interest so

it was thereby regarded as an undesignated heritage asset an appeal

was made against this listing by the applicant which was successful in

essence. So the council's appeal panel concluded that it was actually not a

good example of a building of this type, that was their conclusion, coupled with

the state of dereliction. So the building was therefore delisted as it were on the

30th of April 2025 and is no longer on the local heritage list. So the heritage

officers comments predate that and they've since confirmed via verbal

surgery they have no objection and no longer regarded as an undesignated

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:58:39

heritage asset okay so the change in the local heritage listing means the

heritage officer is effectively withdrawn their objection is that right

yes okay thanks I'll let someone else before I come back with something else

Councillor Ashman and then Councillor Harris.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:58:56

Thank you.

And I am broadly following up

on Councillor Roberts' questions.

So the first one was potentially a technical point.

So you talked about the MPPF being more relevant

than Policy H4 because of the policy being newer,

which is understandable.

Is there anything in there around air asks though?

And if not, do we risk losing sight of that,

those special characteristics if it's a more general document that doesn't specifically address the area?

Mr Mike Shires - 0:59:30

I suppose in terms of the phrase, is the MPPF more relevant, it's more recent and it carries more weight.

That's probably the proper way of describing it.

No, I don't believe, you know, it doesn't water down good design at all.

There's so much in the MPPF about good design and certainly over the last few years,

you know, it's come to the fore even more with the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code.

We do have, to help us assess design, we've got a very good townscape character study

which gives a lot of information actually about this particular area,

which there's a bit of information about in the report.

It's paragraph 5 .6 and 5 .7.

There's a green suburban road typology area,

so this is all related to design

and how a new building fits into existing character.

And it talks about that typology is dominated

by large, predominantly attached buildings

set in large plots with regular plot widths

and a regular plot pattern,

regular building lines, spacing between buildings,

buildings arranged parallel to the roads

and set behind medium to large sized front gardens.

In my view it's difficult to see how the new building doesn't comply with that

because it is a large building, it's not altering the plot pattern at all.

It's still a large building set in a large plot, the landscaping is very much to the fore.

A lot of the landscaping is being retained, the majority of it is supplemented by new trees around the front.

So design is still extremely important.

there are other sort of tools we've got as well you know which assess it in a

slightly more general way rather than actually through the list of specific

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:01:25

criteria in H4. Thank you and the other question was relating to the non

designated heritage asset so I saw the letter from the Heritage Officer saying

that it had been removed and therefore obviously there wouldn't be an objection

it does appear from that though that one of the main reasons for it being removed

was that the building had deteriorated and I guess I was concerned that

therefore an unscrupulous person would find a way to just allow a building to

deteriorate and therefore get it removed as a non designated heritage asset. Are

we not almost encouraging that as a route if we are therefore endorsing that

approach? That's a very good point Emma obviously you know just letting a

Mr Mike Shires - 1:02:07

building get dilapidated shouldn't be justification but apologies if I didn't

make that clear earlier but the actual conclusion of the council's appeal

panel was stark quote it was not in fact a good example of a building of this

type sort of end quote that was the main conclusion they did note it was in a

state of dereliction but that wasn't the primary concern it was mainly that it

wasn't actually a really good example of a building of that type as they felt

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:02:42

Thank you very much, Chair and I hope you bear with me as it's five years as I sat this

chair.

The officers have taken the building individually, the officers have clearly worked hard with

the applicant to ensure that the overall scale and mass and design of the property is in

keeping with the others in the street.

However, it's quite clear that the overall size of the property is considerably larger

and therefore occupies a lot more of the site itself.

The other characteristic is that we've got five flats which generate a lot more people,

a lot more vehicle movements and to this end we've even had a change in the access to allow

the ingress and egress of cars at the same time.

quite out of character with everything else actually in the street.

Under the new planning policies this development seems great.

We've got six, seven units away.

Out of the 89 ,000 we've got to find as a council.

So that makes it very attractive to try and push through a development of this type.

But I can see why Graham Harris identified the development

as providing something that was out of the order in this location

and we've set a nasty development

for similar hybrid type properties to come along.

What I would say supports the school's development

is the ability of this nature

with that many one bedroom flats.

It's an extra kitchen in each flat

and an extra bathroom in each flat,

and that's not cheap, it's expensive.

So it will be an expensive and well financed development.

But I think the question overall for me

is how much that increase in density of people,

vehicle movements, and overall amount of space

taken up on the site can be balanced against the ARASC,

is that correct?

The character,

sorry, not familiar with this one.

the established residential area of special character, how much it contradicts that for

my personal view. Historically, I think it would have been nuts to say goodbye to this

development.

Councillor Harris, in terms of, we're just trying to get to the bottom of the technical

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:05:11

questions you're trying to ask of the officer.

Right.

rather we're not in the debate about what your overall thinking is. Presumably some of the

questions would be that I'm trying to gather from what that was, is one the assessment in terms of

parking and the impact of that under its current need is one of the things that you're looking at

there. Presumably, in terms of the parking space and how that is provided.

Obviously currently it was difficult when we went there to actually see what

had been the drive and how big an area that was because everything was grassed

over. Though there was a garage you just about might have worked out where that

was. And I think the other point is about the density. Anything else?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:06:11

Sorry, as I say, you have to excuse me. That's quite the way you handle things, Chairman.

But to me, it's just the overall density and whether that really fits with the impact on

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:06:29

the rest of the street in terms of overall character. So the character and the impact on the character theory.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:06:38

Okay I'll do my best. I wonder if we could just have the slide up again that's on the screen

just showing the site plan. Oh thank you.

There, so that's the proposed site plan.

So just to outline the parking,

obviously just to reiterate the access is moving

from the current position there,

just underneath the large sort of street tree

just down here to the corner.

And this is hard surfacing along with the spaces there.

Numerically in terms of the parking,

the parking standard is 10 spaces

It provides 10 spaces plus two in the garage.

The highways office is not convinced about the ones in the garage,

they're slightly deficient, but it doesn't actually matter

because there are 10 surface spaces there anyway.

So purely in numerical terms, it meets the parking standards

and there's sufficient space to turn an exit and forward gear.

In terms of the layout and design,

I would perhaps sort of draw your attention to the location of the new access

and the fact there's a small belt of trees here,

which I feel really helps sort of minimise the impact of that from the street scene.

From the photos that I showed earlier you'll have seen and those of you that went from the site visit

yesterday you'll have seen it's very well screened from the street at the moment.

And the way this has been designed with the sort of small belt of trees just there

actually prevents views into the site to appreciate the parking along with

all the landscaping, the trees are being retained and supplemented to the front.

It's quite a thick belt, I see, along the front there of vegetation and landscaping,

which would screen that quite well.

And in terms of the area of parking, as I mentioned earlier,

it's not that dissimilar proportion -wise in terms of the area of the plot frontage

to some of the other properties, particularly the ones opposite,

that have got large areas of hard surfacing.

And then I think the second query was regarding density, was it?

Sort of how that is addressed.

We don't have specific policies of guiding or restricting certain densities,

so it's more a question of how density manifests itself on a site,

if you see what I mean, in terms of the activity it generates,

the resulting size of the building.

So it really sort of comes back down

to looking at individual things.

So, you know, does this building fit within the plot

and the street scene?

Is the hard surfacing acceptable?

Level of activity acceptable rather than specific

sort of queries about density?

A number of questions.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:09:35

Can I just clarify a couple of points on here

which are parts of the old local plan

which still exists at this point in time.

One in terms of rear gardens,

there's a minimum of 15 metres required.

Can you confirm that that is gonna be maintained on this?

And could you also confirm the distances

to the boundaries on either side of the property?

Mr Mike Shires - 1:10:05

Yep, that's nice and factual.

So the dwelling, yes, I mean,

Policy H12 has a guideline of 15 metre depth

for rear gardens to dwellings,

except in areas where rear gardens are shorter

and they should just reflect the character of the area.

This has got 15 metre deep rear garden, as you'd expect,

because it's quite a large plot.

In terms of the flats, there's further information

that's in the supporting text, Policy H12,

which says, roughly speaking,

one bed flat should have 25 square metres of outdoor

and mini space and a two bed flat should have 30 square

metres so that could all be communally provided

in a communal garden so adding that all up

results in a requirement for 130 square metres

of garden space for the flats which is provided on the site

in the area that was just shown on the site plan.

And then the distances to the boundaries

They're probably greater than they look, actually,

on the plan.

So the gap from the proposed flank wall,

northern flank wall of the proposed building

to the property to the north, that's Grayleys,

at 23 Amersham Road is 9 .8 metres.

So just short of a 10 metre gap, which is quite large.

And the gap to the property to the south Ashley House

between the two -storey flank walls is 7 .1 metres.

So again, that's quite a substantial gap

between the two properties.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:11:41

Thank you. I've got quite a list. That's why I thought I'd get a couple of questions in

before we moved on. I've got Councillor Tett, Councillor Matthews, Councillor Caesar.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:11:53

Thank you. We've actually touched upon my question. I just wanted to correctly ask my

question to the officer that I asked earlier, which was about the appearance of the property

from the front. And you showed a picture, because it was one of the issues raised by

the residents and obviously of great concern the actual appearance of it from

the road you actually had a photo not a photo an illustration of what the

property would look like including the retained trees I just wonder if you

could reshow that so the committee can make a decision on whether we are in

fact keeping and maintaining the street scene that's that's my first point I

one other quick one and the is that a wall I'm seeing I'm just because there's

obviously the tree and I can see that and some trees behind it is that a brick

wall or is it a wooden fence so I'm not sure or is that just illustrative does

he form part of the application I mean yes it's fence along the front boundary

There's a wooden fence.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:12:51

The vegetation behind.

Okay, that's,

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:12:58

yes, okay, that's really helpful to me actually

in terms of a view on whether it preserves the street scene.

My second question, I expect I know the answer to it,

but I'm gonna ask it anyway,

which is one of the big concerns

that both the Parish Council and indeed residents have

is that this sets a precedent.

If we're even allowed to consider the fact

that this is specifically for teachers,

Which I know we're not allowed to take into account as a planning issue, but if one did do that

To what extent does this therefore set a precedent elsewhere in the road for further flat development?

Which then would use this as a reference site effectively to say well

What's the problem with a block of flats down five houses down the road ten houses down the road because you've approved this one

And I remember a committee what two ago I think in Beckons Field where a site was agreed exactly on that basis

That although it wasn't desirable what was proposed

It the officers referenced that another property further down had already been accepted on that basis

So my question is to what extent is it a relevant planning consideration going forward that if this one is permitted today

any further development for whatever reason

would actually then use this as a reference

and that would be a material consideration.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:14:22

Yes, I fully appreciate that sort of important point

and for the people have written in as well.

I mean, as you'll be aware,

it's a fundamental sort of principle really

if the planning system everything should be

on its own merits.

So the question of precedent doesn't really arise

and if that were sort of raised then appeal inspectors would wouldn't really go along with that.

In essence I would say sort of what distinguishes this plot from others is that it's slightly wider

plot there's more space around it that doesn't necessarily apply to every plot in the street

scene other plots are nearer to the schools for example or opposite the church or nearer to road

junctions where they might present sort of different considerations highways might have

concerns to intensified accesses elsewhere in the street that they don't

have on this plot for example some of the other plots may very well not be

able to fit you know flattered developments in to be viable so I think

there's quite a few differences for this block compared to others that's sort of

really all I can say on that because the issue of precedent isn't really

something that should be sort of raised as a viable concern. I will just say this

because I'm puzzled.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:15:35

I mean, I sat through that meeting

on the Beckonsfield site,

and precedent was, I think, actually in both the papers

from the officer, and actually mentioned

during the meeting, so there seems to be

a slight contradiction, and I,

like I say, I have an enormous respect for Mike Shires,

but there seems to be a contradiction

between what Mike is saying,

and what that previous report said,

and it's a relevant issue for local residents

to understand to what extent this sets a precedent,

and whether that is a relevant planning consideration.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:16:07

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:16:11

Funny enough about the very first application

that I ever dealt with when I came to the council

at Chilton district was down on the Penn Road,

one application which was a house turning into flats

where the entrance was on the Penn Road

and then another one on the same meeting.

was for flats to go into Notics Drive,

where Notics Drive had not had any flats before.

The one on the Penn Road was accepted

because it considered around that there were other properties

which did have an impact.

So it has been looked at before,

where Notics Drive had never had any flats in it

and was housing single dwellings.

As it was actually, funny enough,

the flat never turned into flat,

it became a single dwelling.

but there have been in papers before on the same agendas different arguments used

and I used to flip the argument for the Notics drive on what's been used

previously on it so it has you know sometimes this looking at what the

character is some of the character will be what do the buildings look like and

are the buildings which are coming in in a similar look to them and if the look

is significantly different.

The one which I was looking at where it got turned out

and not described looked like a municipal hospital

that they were gonna put in.

So it did look significantly different to the houses.

So I think the look can be quite a difference

in terms of character is not just about it being flats,

but actually it's how does the building look

within the environment and is it completely out of keeping?

So the materials which are used and other things.

And the inspector actually upheld that

and agreed with me that that design was abominable

and actually put it in the paper.

So sometimes the look is very important

as much as what the building is gonna be.

See, you're not convinced there.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:18:16

I just, I hear what you say, Mr. Chairman,

and clearly you have vast experience in this area.

All I know is I sat through a meeting

where it was very clearly stated

that one site set precedent for the other and I just think we need consistency in terms of the

direction we get from our officers collectively in terms of whether or not

precedent is a

material planning consideration

Just getting my list

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:18:47

Council Matthews you've been very patient. Thank you

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:18:53

Having looked at the plans it's quite clear that the result of this application

if it were passed would result in the plot being divided into two because

you've got the house on one side with a separate garden and you've got the flats

on the other side and both have separate front doors so you've got separate

dwellings on that plot so you'd end up with two two dwellings on that two plots

on that space and how a with a chair drive so how does that then comply with

the townscape character study and the area of special responsibility or

special character because you've then got something that's got two plots small

plots on which is out of keeping with the rest of the road

Mr Mike Shires - 1:19:48

So the other I touched on it earlier and the Chilton South Bucks

townscape character study from 2017 it's a very useful document to help sort of

assess design and character and it does talk about well there's two things to

draw attention to really is first of all the green suburban road typology area which this is

characterised as part of where it talks of about the character this typology is dominated by large

predominantly detached buildings set in large plots and then the other points are more to do

with the plot pattern which obviously isn't changing the plot remains as it is so regular

the plot pattern in terms of width,

regular building lines, regular spacing between dwellings,

buildings arranged parallel to the roads

and set behind front gardens.

What's key to that is that the buildings and the landscape

should be of equal importance.

So the building shouldn't dominate the landscape,

for example, so it's really key.

That's why I was pleased to see the amount of landscaping

being proposed here and because of the setback

of the new building from the street.

We do feel the buildings and the landscape would remain of equal importance here.

What the Townscape Character Study also does is go into a little bit more detail about this specific area.

It's known as the Copekins Lane to Clifton Road area of special character.

I probably should give you a bit of background on that because Policy CS21 and the Core Strategy deals with areas of special character.

What the policy does say is that those areas would be defined in a subsequent delivery DPD,

which due to the flux of change, if you like, at the time, new local plan coming forward,

which was eventually withdrawn, that delivery DPD never came forward.

So those areas were never actually defined.

So policy CS21 doesn't actually relate to any defined areas.

So there are some bits in the townscape character study

which are helpful to certainly to assess

the character of this area,

but in terms of policy CS21 and its applicability

doesn't really have any reference

because those areas weren't formally defined.

So we're falling back onto the ARASC,

the established residential area special character

which is the designation.

So in terms of this area and the townscape character study,

it sets out the areas of high quality townscape,

vulnerable to change due to its distinctive

low density pattern of detached buildings

in large garden plots,

which I would argue this isn't at odds with

because it's still a large building and a large plot.

And then it talks about low density distinctive patterns

of detached buildings set within large plots

associated with mature vegetation,

and that's really how it defines the character of that area,

which we feel it does respect.

And just the last point I'd make in relation to that is one I touched on earlier,

and just say that Amersham Road is more mixed in terms of use and the buildings along there

than some of the residential side streets like Chiltern Road and Clifton Road.

There's a more variety of buildings in terms of the uses as well as the size along Amersham Road,

so that's where the two schools and the church fit in as well.

and

Councillor Caesar Wilson and then Roberts

Cllr Cole Caesar - 1:23:25

Thank you very much chairman. I want to just go to

the highways officer

So he said that 10 to 20 additional daily two -way trips. So has this actually taken into consideration the two schools?

we've obviously the

Busy road obviously Amazon Road would be with the two schools on the exact road. So has that assessment taken that into consideration?

I suppose that observation is sort of a factual one, yes.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:23:56

He says it would generate an extra between 10 and 20 vehicle movements per day, the proposed

development compared to the existing house, which when you average it out over the day

is very little.

In fact, I'm not quite clear on the question regarding the school, what relevance that

has.

Cllr Cole Caesar - 1:24:16

Well, you've got two schools, so you're going to have multiple parents parking.

I would assume it's probably chaotic during rush hour or in this case pick up and drop

off.

You know, we're looking at multiple flats, so there are going to be continuous, there's

about 10 parking spaces, which to be honest I don't think is, my honest opinion is I don't

think that's actually enough because knowing flats quite well they probably would end up

parking on the road and so on.

But let's say in the case that we do have parents who are parking on the road on Amersham Road

They could potentially block entrances. We could potentially have issues now

I don't live there so I could be totally wrong but has this

When the officer did this report as you've taken everything into consideration including the two schools

It seems obvious but there is two cases where it hasn't

Mr Mike Shires - 1:25:11

I think the question is has it been modelled?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:25:15

Yes, has it been modelled on the basis of the two schools?

Having two schools on one major road is...

Cllr Cole Caesar - 1:25:20

I think the usage of the road with the schools sector is highly...

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:25:28

No, but I'm not quite sure what modelling takes place for what is quite a small development.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:25:34

I mean essentially yes, it's quite a small development in terms of the vehicle movements.

If it was in the hundreds you'd expect sort of full transport modelling and that's quite a small number overall

I mean the highways office has taken into account the location

Obviously, they're very aware

They've dealt with a lot of things in around the beacon school in the past and they have taken that into consideration

And I was just checking them the photos as well. There are actually parking restrictions along Amersham Road

So people wouldn't be able to park there

Thank You councillor Wilson

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:26:07

Thank You chair I've been trying to follow through all the different

policies going back to 1997 one of the questions I have is and I've also looked

at the MPPF is the difference between buildings and dwellings because one of

the questions that seems to be pertinent here and it relates back to

identification and perhaps Mr. Shires could give us a differentiation between a building

and a dwelling because the officer's report uses them very interchangeably. The MPPF only

refers to building. There's only two references in the entire MPPF document to dwelling. But

H4 and the other documents that have been referenced refer to dwellings.

And I think there is a difference, but I would like to understand from a planning point of view

whether there is a difference and how we should consider that,

because I think in terms of application of the different policies, that may have a materiality.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:27:36

I apologise if this sounds a little blunt but I think it's probably an issue of just semantics

and I don't think there really is much of a difference. In terms of when you're looking at

the character of the area, I won't quote it all again, I've mentioned the bits from the

landscape character study earlier where it talks about low density pattern of

buildings within large landscape plots. That's essentially the character

of the area. The way this has been designed to appear as a single dwelling

or at least a single building, I feel, you know, we as officers feel it

does respect that character, hence the recommendation. I don't think that

it matters too much whether it's regarded as dwelling or building. If the

building was of a huge size and it generated a huge amount of additional

activity then that's something else to take into account in terms of

overall character as well as the visual qualities and level of activity etc.

But even that with this building as we just explored with the highways

comments isn't massive the additional activity that it generates.

there will become a point where that does impact

on the character obviously,

if it was, there were more flats there.

But I don't think, in answer to the question,

it matters too much for these considered buildings

or dwellings.

Come back on that one, Cham.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:29:07

So, I think that is an interesting point

in terms of the differences,

because the character assessment says

a distinctive low density pattern of detached and semi -detached houses. This is clearly has been

referenced. I understand it's a building, but that building contains multiple dwellings.

And I think there is a distinction there. And the character assessment refers to houses

and it doesn't say buildings. So I think there is a difference between

a house and a dwelling.

And this is a building with multiple dwellings in it.

If I go back to the H4 policy,

which talks about, and it's Councillor Roberts' reference,

is the form of existing residential development

should be maintained in terms of dwellings

being detached, semi -detached, or terraced.

That specifically relates to dwellings.

And the footnote to that policy says new dwellings are as defined in class C3 of the town and country planning use classes order

1987

which

Does reference the fact that that refers to a single household

So it's very clear in that 1987 legislation or policy document

That it relates to a single household not multiple households

So I think there is a distinction here between a building, so all dwellings are buildings,

more or less, but not necessarily all buildings are a dwelling, it can be multiple dwelling.

And I think there's a distinction here in the policies and that's why I asked the question

between whether the MPPF now differentiates between building and dwelling.

and therefore you said that the MPPF supersedes in a sense, but if it doesn't

then what should we refer back to? And paragraph 5 .6 of the officer's report

about users building and dwelling interchangeably and I think probably in

trying to understand the intent of that of the policies particularly H4 because

that talks about low density building or low density detached semi -detached in

terraced which I interpret to be single household not multiple households but

I'm that's why I'm asking for clarification on the policy

Mr Mike Shires - 1:32:04

Councillor Roberts and then Councillor Hind.

Yes, I've got a final few points.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:32:11

Shall I ask Councillor Hind first?

Could do, yeah.

He hasn't come back to me.

You've had a go already, so I'll go to Councillor Hind and come back to you.

Councillor Hind.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:32:21

Are there any other houses in the area that what I would call have been led by

lanes you know a four bedroom house turned into a six seven eight bedroom

house there when I've driven up and down that road many many times but I I

wouldn't notice if anything like that had happened do you know if there were

any in the area that have been changed dramatically in terms of their

it's difficult to answer without looking up all the history of the

Mr Mike Shires - 1:33:01

process but I suppose it comes back to my point I was making earlier I mean

there is a variety of buildings along this whether they're called buildings

dwellings there's the different uses with the schools and the church and the

buildings or dwellings are different sizes you know this particular side of

Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:33:24

the street the point I'm making if there are six seven eight bedroom houses in on

that road they could just as easily have six seven eight cars and 16 people

living there you know an extended family grandparents parents you know uncles

It's quite easy to get to that that same number that would that would exist and I would also think that if you've got flats

perhaps by

Where you got 20 21 year old?

teachers

Living there. There's a good chance. They wouldn't have cars anyway too expensive

Yeah, I think the point there is

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:34:01

and I'm sure the outcome in terms of the recommendation would be probably very little different to

where she's come forward now in looking at similar plots across what the committee sees

all the time.

But, Councillor Wilson.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:34:35

I was only going, perhaps the example that was provided by Councillor Yeomans on behalf of the Parish Council was 36 Stanley Hill,

which actually was rejected on 4 November 2019, and I think that was two separate buildings on the same plot.

So I think it was a different, and there were multiple reasons for, you probably remember it, Jem.

So I don't think there was an example provided of a nearby comparable.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:35:05

Council Roberts yes so and the first point I wanted to clarify was on arriving

at the the parking figure you just run us through how that's calculated and in

particular thinking around visitor parking because of course there is no

parking on the road at all it's a very busy road and the restrictions there so

I'm not sure whether the 10 is sufficient for visitor parking

So I've just shot in it

Mr Mike Shires - 1:35:42

Okay, so just to reiterate the standards and the for bed dwelling

Itself needs of these parking zone B by the way, which dictates the standards

The for bed dwelling requires three spaces as the optimum parking standard

The one bed flats of which there are three

require one space each, and the two bed flats

of which there are two require two spaces.

So the total optimum standard is 10 spaces.

The report does say eight, which is an error.

Unfortunately the standard is 10.

And 10 spaces are provided.

12 if you count the garages, although as I said earlier,

they're slightly deficient in size.

We've not counted them.

but there are 10 frontage spaces.

There isn't any specific visitor parking,

I suppose the simplest answer for that

is because there's no standard for visitor parking

for this type of development,

so there's no requirement to provide any,

and also with the restrictions along Amersham Road,

it would be very difficult to say

it would result in overflow parking along Amersham Road

when people can't park there anyway, legally.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:36:54

So but if we were if we were looking at a larger block of flats we would when we

look at having a provision for the dwellings plus visitor parking wouldn't

Mr Mike Shires - 1:37:12

we I've only looked in detail at the parking standard for this proposed

development because obviously that's what's in front of us there's no visitor

to parking standard for this level of flats.

I don't think there is a visitor parking standard

for even larger flats,

but obviously that's not before us anyway.

Okay.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:37:31

And related to the Amherst Road there,

have we got anything in conditions

around a construction period?

Because obviously there's not gonna be able

to be any construction traffic on the road at all there

because it's unbelievably busy especially at school knockoff times

there's a couple of them conditions which we don't always recommend us here

for extra safeguards so that's conditions two and three on page 18 of

the report it's the aim is for protect the immediately of the locality and I

including a mean to have residents school etc so we're suggesting condition

to is prior to commencement of any works and noise management plan should be

Mr Mike Shires - 1:38:19

submitted to and approved by us and that's to cover all the demolition and

construction phases of the proposed development so it sets out when the

noisiest phases can occur controls noise dust vibration and traffic from all the

phases so we felt that was quite important given the location on the busy

road and then following on from that recommended condition three is for a

construction traffic management plans so that

basically

Requires the applicant to submit a plan of the site showing how the construction vehicles would be accommodated within the site along with areas

of storage for building materials

In fact, there's a list in the condition here

So vehicle types frequency of visits expected daily time frames use of a banksman

on -site loading and unloading arrangements and parking of site operative vehicles

So they have to submit a plan to us showing all that area

because there's plenty of space within the site

to the frontage to provide that.

So the idea being then that that is provided

and therefore used as part of the construction phase.

Okay, okay that's fine.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:39:24

Another question I had was,

there was some discussion in the documentation

about the ecological reports and the bat survey

and things like that.

So can you just confirm that all of those required ecological and biodiversity reports

are complete and up to date and compliant with the requirements?

I think it was stated it was updated to 2025.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:40:01

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:40:06

Yes, just really for the record, just a confirmation that it's all in order and complete and compliant.

I thought I'd made a note of that on my copious notes, but you've caught me out.

Mr Mike Shires - 1:40:13

So yes, there was an ecology report originally submitted in 2023, a suite of reports, a preliminary ecological appraisal,

which basically assesses all the habitat and the value of any wildlife or ecology on the

sites along with a preliminary roost assessment assessing the existing building for bats where

it found a confirmed bat roost existing dwelling. Those were redone generally speaking ecology

reports were only valid for 18 months to two years so they were redone last year November

so they are fully up to date the ecological reports. In terms of the bat report in case

that just generates any further questions. The Ecology Officer was

recommending, she's happy with that, it requires a licence from Natural

England in order to progress. What we used to do practise -wise was to put a

condition on to such planning permissions requiring that the applicant

basically submit proof of the licence before they were allowed to carry on

works. But appeal inspectors sort of criticised that approach, it's an

entirely separate process so it should be managed by the applicant externally

or aside from you know the planning system so what could do actually just

looking through the report is put an additional informative on just to remind

them they're aware of that anyway but just to remind them I need to go through

that process and the last one was coming back to the point I raised earlier about

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:41:44

the the sang and the section 106 agreement if you could just clarify

where we are with that, is that ready to go

on signing that off and what's the status

of the Kingsbrook sang that appears to be the one

that this is aligned to?

Mr Mike Shires - 1:42:06

Yes, finally, obviously the last strategic sang

Kingsbrook near Aylesbury was granted plan permission

last autumn so that means we can progress

the affected applications.

That basically provides the strategic mitigation for all residential schemes up to and including

nine units across the zone of influence in Bucks.

So hence why it can provide the mitigation for this development.

The applicants actually got quite a long way through the process with this.

They've corresponded with the case officer, they provided all the information for the

legal agreement, we've done the appropriate assessment, consulted Natural England, we've

got no objections subject to the legal agreement securing the contributions for

the Sam and the sang the Kingsbrook sang so if if you voted the cause of the

recommendation then the next stage would be just to refer the matter to legal

for the legal agreement to be processed you did mention Kingsbrook in the

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:43:05

documentation but I wasn't sure whether this site was in the radius of Kings

Brook and there was some discussion earlier about White Lion Road and so on

so I wasn't that's what I wanted some clarification around it if you could and

are they open to having those agreements are they ready to sign agreements for

Mr Mike Shires - 1:43:37

Kingsbrook at this stage yes just to clarify on the Kingsbrook sang it's

capable of mitigating as I say sort of all developments residential

developments up to nine units across the zone of influence in bucks so there

isn't a catchment area in that sense other than it's just covers the zone of

influence that is the catchment area if you like it can cover larger

developments ten units plus but there's a catchment area for that of five

kilometres relevant here though. Okay thank you very much. I did have Councillor

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:44:06

Cllr Cole Caesar - 1:44:12

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:44:15

Caesar did you want to say anything further? No sorry I withdraw now. Okay we will now open up to the

debate on the on the item who would like to start?

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:44:32

I'm satisfied on a lot of points that have been raised,

but central to this is the question of the residential area

special character and this point about the policy H4,

item six and about the dwellings,

this not complying with that I understand what's mentioned about the

MPPF but that kind of in my mind that negates the whole point about this have

been a special character an area of special character and it having been

designated and I feel kind of uncomfortable about that and I don't

know whether that view is shared by other members

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:45:19

I think I'm in a similar place to Councillor Roberts in I don't have a problem with the

building I think they've done quite a good amount of work on trying to get the design

You know, we've heard that the roof height is similar.

It's not materially different to the existing dwelling

nor the neighbouring property.

And it looks on the plots

that it's a similar width

to one of the neighbouring properties,

probably a bit deeper.

So the overall mass of it is larger.

And I think the landscaping probably ticks a lot of boxes

in terms of retention of existing landscape

and also the improvements that have been proposed.

And the hard standing areas do not look out of character

with other properties in the road,

which I think Mr. Shire showed us.

I do have an issue around the prevailing,

either the townscape character study, which was quoted as being more up to date than a 30 -year -old

local plan, in its reference to low density. And low density to me does refer to number of

households, that kind of household formation on a plot, and the relationship with detached or

semi -detached homes as opposed to a block of flats next to a semi -detached

house adjoining that. And so I'm left with that and you know having tried to

trace through all the different policy documents from the MPPF I've gone

through the character assessment I've gone back to the source document for H4

I've even gone back to the legislation from 1987 to understand what it's

and everything I can see in those documents is referencing that it's a

single household formation and as I think you said Chen, if that's what was

on the table here I don't think there would be a substantial area of

discussion but that is not what's on the table and that's the bit that I have an

issue with here against the townscape character assessment, but also H4 in terms of the wording

that the source documents refer to, compared to what I think is interchangeably used in

the officer's report between buildings and dwellings. And I think that's an important

distinction.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:48:23

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:48:30

I think there is a distinction between large detached properties on large plots compared

to what it looks like is happening here.

While the building itself visually sits nicely within the plot and seems to be a good example,

I think splitting the back garden narrows the plot and it has all the hallmarks of multiple residential dwellings.

So, you know, bin stores, cycle parking, multiple parking spaces, all hallmarks of flats and multiple dwellings.

Not what you'd expect to see in a detached building in a large plot.

So I think that is what changes the character, you know, not just the fact that there's multiple dwellings

But all the things that go alongside that to make that workable

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:49:28

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:49:33

Counsellor Tet then council Harrison council hide. Yes. Thank you. I mean I started off I have to say I think read the report

somewhat uncomfortable with this if I'm honest

However, I mean I've gone through the the items were raised particularly by the parish council as their objections

and just just for the sake of the record, you know, it's within a

An area of special character, but it was removed

And it had been derelict for six years

I mean that and I completely take cancer Ashman's point about you don't want to open door for developers who just buy properly in lethal

derelict

but the fact it has been derelict for six years

cleaways quite heavily with that.

Highways issues, I mean the parking seems

to meet parking standards, the visual display

of visual spray is adequate.

The overlooking it's not materially closer

and it seems to be about the same height

as another property adjacent to it.

Lack of consultation is I don't think

a relevant planning consideration as such.

I understand the parish council not being happy about that apparently.

And there is biodiversity net gain of apparently about 11 percent.

For me still, and the frontage by the way, I think I'd be honest, you know, in my opinion

it looks quite attractive. I mean given what could be there, and some flats are pretty ugly frankly,

this seems to retain much of the character of the road.

My biggest outstanding concerns really are precedent, and to what extent this would open

the door for other similar developments not linked to the school and I know

linkage to the school is not a relevant planning consideration I just put that

out there and I'm partly comforted not wholly by the officer saying you know

everyone is considered on its merits but my worry is a different planning officer

will say what you've done with it already so you know this is just another

one. So I am concerned about the precedent the set and although it's

again not a relevant planning consideration I'm disappointed given the

importance of this for housing for teachers that the school did not offer

separately and in parallel an illegal agreement that this site would be used

for teaching for school staff teaching or otherwise which though not relevant

for planning would have eased my concern in that area. So it's it's a tricky one

think on balance I think there's many points that the MPPF quite frankly guide

us towards saying yes to this and there are a couple of niggles for me which way

on the other side of it and I'm quite interested just to hear what other

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:52:18

colleagues are saying. Thank you. Councillor Harris then Councillor Hyde.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:52:25

Well I made a lot of my points earlier on what I shouldn't have done apparently but this is a

difficult one, I think the setting within this area and in terms of its specific character.

As I said before, the design has been done specifically to ensure that it fits in visually

with everything else.

But I'm really minded about the overall density, I think that we've got to let people, sorry,

I put in the DNA.

She's made it quite clear that by splitting the site up

with the less occupation homes on one side

and then the house on the other is out of keeping.

And I have this vision of a Le Mans start in the morning.

Everyone racing down with their cup of coffee,

jumping in their cars at 8 o 'clock

and being the first of the gate to get out onto the road.

So I think this over -densification in terms of people,

and I think if we did go to appeal,

then the question of whether it's a dwelling

or it's a household would be nailed quite clearly

by the legal representation, and that would be clarified

and something perhaps we could take away from this.

I would hope if a colleague wants to put up,

is minded to refuse, then I would be happy to support

and subject to coming up with sufficient.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:53:51

Just one point, obviously in terms of any highways matters,

just be aware, if we went to appeal

on any highways matters, our highways professions

have told us the displays are fine, the traffic is fine,

in terms of the amount of traffic,

it would not be a reason that we would be able

to go to an appeal on.

So I know you're saying they would all leave if their teachers are going to be walking down the road

But if they're not it won't be so which because there's no legal agreement

To the side of this so that I just thought I'd highlight

You've talked about that on the agreement side of things I think at the moment in

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:54:30

Education for a school to tie itself to any form of agreement

The the number of schools we are losing of this nature is horrific and the private school private

school sectors and a terrible situation.

Okay, that's not a planning reason.

Councillor Hynd.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:54:50

I sense that if this application was being put forward

as the Beacon School wanting a property

for future headmasters and for staff often,

Australians, New Zealanders coming over for a year's work

of teaching in their gap years,

I don't think this would have been a problem.

I sense that we all want to support the school.

It employs a lot of people, it's well -aliked

by people living locally.

I don't think anybody, I've sensed,

complains about the fact they have a school on that road.

and I sense that the concern is for a fear of what it might look like in a few years' time

and who might live there rather than necessarily what its probable intentions are for.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:55:52

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak?

If I can just say a couple of items in terms of my view.

I think what's coming from the committee is,

I think the look and the appearance is not the issue.

So in terms of character,

normally a lot of the time when you're looking at characters,

if you walk down the street,

would you actually believe that this

was going to make a negative impact on the street scene?

And that's why I think bringing into the decision,

you know, actually thinking about

if it had been a single dwelling,

which is probably what the other alternative would be, would come on the site.

It wouldn't look much different in size on a site like this if you're going to develop it.

I can't think anything would come in smaller, but in terms of planning, does it achieve in terms of bulk scale, look, appearance, design, those areas.

So those character parts of it, I think, are not the issue.

I think overall it is actually a lot of this is this going to actually mean the whole of

the rest of the street, the whole of the rest of the area is going to turn into flats.

But that isn't really something we could be making a decision on now which makes it difficult.

We are making a decision on this site and the impact this site and this number of dwellings

on this site will actually make and how different it is.

Council Ashman did talk about, you know, marked out parking spaces and the area, but actually

the area isn't significantly different for parking than any other area that can be marked

out with however many cars anyone might have.

This one actually will come with a permeable surface, which the others may or may not have

because they haven't had to go through this process.

So there are sort of balances.

The highways point I've made,

we have to think about,

we're not specialists in highways or modelling.

And so if they've come back with a very clear decision

in terms of what this is,

and it does fulfil what's required in terms of parking,

that wouldn't be a ground

that we would be able to actually make.

If they were short of parking by a certain number,

we could try and put that forward

along with other issues if we wanted to.

But because it it does meet the standards that is not something the committee could actually say

Would be a reason to refuse so there's these these balances so

That's sort of my point and

We haven't got a proposal at this point. Sorry council Roberts. Would you like to say something?

yes, I am I

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:58:37

Think it is right that they the the design the appearance of it

if it was a single dwelling that looked like

and had the plan as defined

and it was just a single dwelling on that site,

I think we would probably have very little objection to it.

I think it would pass the criteria quite easily

and we would be comfortable to support that.

The difference is, in this case,

is the subdivision into flats,

of the new dwelling.

But even that, if it were not in a residential area

of special character,

I probably wouldn't have concern about that either.

I would say if you've got a large dwelling

in a residential area that's not a designated area

of special character, we probably wouldn't have concern

about that being subdivided either.

But it comes back to the specifics of policy H4

and the item there that talks about dwellings

of detached, semi -detached and terraced.

And this does not comply with that policy.

So for that reason, I'm minded to propose refusing it

and see whether others wish to second that.

Just a note for the committee.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:00:09

If you are minded to propose an overturn

of officer recommendation,

then in line with paragraph 6 .3 of the officer report,

because we are in tilted balance,

whatever reasons for refusal you would like

as the decision makers to articulate,

you must also do the balancing and come to the decision

that the adverse impacts or harms of the development

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

So it's not just a reason for refusal,

you must redo the balancing.

Mike Scharz just wants to follow on from that point

before we go any further.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:00:51

Yes, just to follow on from that,

Mr Mike Shires - 2:00:55

a point I was going to make before any vote actually.

In the report in front of you in paragraph 6 .3 onwards,

we talk about paragraph 11 of the MPPF and the tilted balance.

Obviously this is something that is really important.

I'll pick out the relevant parts of that paragraph rather than reading it all out.

So it basically says where the policies which are most important for determining the application

are out of date and that includes in the situation where there's no five -year housing land supply.

So that applies to us unfortunately.

Permission must be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the

policies and the MPPF taken as a whole. So what that really means is as a legal

representative said you need to do that balance, the balance is tilted towards

approval because we don't have a five -year housing land supply so you

to apply weight to the provision of a net gain of five dwellings on this site, isn't it?

So that has to attract some positive weight. The level of weight that you attribute that is up to

you and I can sort of help you in terms of other appeal decisions having done quite a lot of

research on this over the years and a lot of inspectors, the minimum weight they would give

five dwellings is moderate weight but I would draw your attention to an appeal from late 2023

which is almost directly opposite this site for a subdivision of a plot an

erection of a new dwelling so that was only a decade of one dwelling and the

inspector gave considerable weight to the provision of one dwelling in light

of the very poor five -year housing land supply that we've got so in order to

conclude that any harm where you've basically got to conclude any harm was

significantly demonstrably outweigh that benefit so if you do give considerable

weight even if you give moderate weight or significant weight to the provision of

five new dwellings you've got to identify that harm which is in effect

much worse than that to put it into plain English so it outweighs that the

benefits of providing that number of dwellings and given what I've sort of

heard so far in the debate it it seems to be a lot of people don't mind the

building don't mind the impact visually on the character of the area which is

probably the most important thing in terms of the character.

It's just the issue of flats,

it's an issue whether it's a single household,

someone said it's a tricky one,

and the balance, which kind of implies

it's not something that attracts considerable weight.

So I would suggest that it's not something

that is going to outweigh the benefits

of providing that number of dwellings,

even if there is a limited amount of harm,

but it's something you do need to do

without an adequate tilted balance being carried out,

then obviously any decision has the risk of being quashed.

So that is something that's important to do.

And it would be attributing significant harm

to a policy that's nearly 30 years

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:04:00

and does not accord with the framework.

If I can just come back on this point.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:04:12

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:04:14

I'm happy to hear what other members think

on this point as well.

Just want to say it feels a little bit like

another golden rules kind of thing,

that because we don't have a five year land supply,

then our existing provisions don't apply anymore.

The protections of a residential area

of special character are being set aside

because of not having a five year land supply.

That's kind of what it feels like.

But anyway, I've made my point.

I'll go other members have to say,

Councillor Tett and Councillor Ashman, I think to some extent

when you go into the balance that we've got in terms of tilted balance,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:04:56

it is a form of punishment really to say we haven't got the five year

housing supply, and that means that that means

some of the decisions that we make have to go into a different format.

So what we would normally do without waiting,

If you think about it, there's a really heavyweight sitting here of housing numbers to actually tilt that back

You've got to have some really really strong reasons to tilt it back. And that's I think the point we've got to make

Otherwise we go to appeal

We've got have those that doesn't mean we're not going to come up with those now

But that's what we could be thinking about council tech then the council Ashman. Yes. Thank you

I said earlier that you know, I was quite

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:05:36

Concerned about this but on the other hand, you know, I could see both sides of this

Just in fairness, I have to say, you know, the five -year land supply issue has been made

significantly worse by the increase in the housing numbers we've been given.

You know, a 50 % increase in the housing numbers make that lack of land supply significantly

worse.

So this government has inflicted that upon us relatively recently, combined with the

other changes in the national planning policy framework which is brought in.

So all of these really reduce very significantly.

And it's a point I tried to make at the beginning

to the public.

We really are very constrained now

by this government's changes, both to the MPPF

and the housing numbers we've got.

So we're not free agents in that sense.

So if we do refuse this, we have to have some really strong,

really strong counterbalancing reasons.

So I'd be very interested to hear

what you know Mark Roberts views will be on that what his grounds he'll put forward on on a personal basis

Having looked at the appearance of the building and the fact it is in an art deco style that seems to blend in

The other houses in the road and although it's not a planning consideration having some sympathy with the school's need for accommodation

All those other factors I went through earlier I

Really struggle to find

really good counterbalancing reasons for refusal that would stand up at appeal.

You know, if I was standing in front of a planning appeal inspector trying to

defend the committee's decision, I think I would struggle, frankly. I curse the

government for what they've done but they really painted us into a corner, I

think, on these types of decisions.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:07:29

I think we would all agree with that point.

Councillor Ashford first, then Councillor Wilson.

Thank you.

I think the tilted balance point is really the one that tilts the balance.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 2:07:41

We talked about intensification of the site and density and the character of the area.

Realistically while we sit in tilted balance, policy H4 becomes not a material planning

consideration which gives us a very difficult situation not of our making

but that's what I'm hearing from the officers and as I've misread that if we

were to use that as a material planning consideration here then we would likely

lose appeal and there would be penalties on us for that. I mean it is a planning

consideration it is a policy it just has very limited weight you're just not

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:08:15

going to overcome the benefits of the scheme and the tilted balance. Thank you

thank you for that clarification.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 2:08:23

I think it makes what was already

a very difficult decision even harder.

And that's what I would note.

Councillor Wilson.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:08:36

Thank you, I wanted to pick up a couple of points

that Councillor Tett made.

One, it hasn't been removed

from the established residential area of special character.

It was removed from the heritage list.

So it still conforms with that ERAS policy.

And the housing supply was still well below the five years,

even before the targets were recalibrated in 2024.

So that would still have applied to this situation

regardless of recent changes.

So the situation hasn't changed.

The bit in the MPPF and I think it comes under paragraph 11D2 is actually the

legal officer referred to the first bit of that paragraph the second bit does a

making effective use of land and I think that probably starts to also work on

this particular application because an inspector might look at that and say,

well, this is making effective use of land. So having reread that particular paragraph in its

fullness, I think that becomes relevant, however uncomfortable I feel that we are

are not fulfilling the intent of the local plan policy,

or indeed the townscape character study,

which is a lot more up to date,

it's only eight years out of date.

So I take those points into consideration as well.

I'm gonna come back to Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:10:37

if you were halfway through making a recommendation, are you still going to make that recommendation?

Well I'm wondering whether somebody else is going to make an alternative recommendation,

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:10:53

which is what I was hearing from others. I think I've made my point clear.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:11:06

Do we have a proposal either to recommend,

to put forward the recommendation of the officers

or a proposal for refusal?

Do we have someone who is prepared to do

the initial proposal?

Well I was rather hoping Councillor Roberts

would carry on with his proposal,

because I wanted to hear the grounds

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:11:31

that he would put forward to refuse the application?

Well, I think I was clear on that.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:11:41

On the policy H4, item six, it doesn't comply with that,

and that constitutes significant harm.

Do we have a seconder for that?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:11:54

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:12:05

Should say I'm kind of waiting here because I haven't heard anybody who's supporting that argument from my colleagues, but I'm not hearing anybody

Proposing an alternative

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:12:17

We haven't had a second is so can we have a proposal from

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:12:27

I'm gonna do this with gritted teeth frankly because I don't really agree with this proposal

But I have listened to the officers. I've listened to my colleagues. I

I cannot see there are sufficient grounds planning

considerations to refuse this I mean I've heard

The angst of the residents. I completely empathise with them

I've read the report. I've read the views the parish council

But on the other side of it, you know, the design looks good

The frontage looks good

And given, you know, the housing numbers we've got,

the shortage of land supply, the current NPPF,

I think we'd really struggle, frankly,

at a planning appeal.

So very, very reluctantly, I'm going to suggest

the committee should approve this application

in line with the office's recommendation.

But I do so through gritted teeth.

I understand. Do we have a seconder?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:13:32

Certainly having said I'm planning for years and years and years. We just seem to have had the rug completely pulled out from under our feet

and

Other than the intensification of use of the site, there's nothing else ready to default this on so I will second

Councillor test proposal

Okay

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:13:53

So I'll now put those in favour of the to accept the recommendation of the

officers with additional informative. Sorry it was such a long time ago, maybe I

Mr Mike Shires - 2:14:20

should just recap on the changes that there was additional condition regarding

additional condition regarding three bat boxes and the bat loft in the garage to

ensure they're installed prior to any occupation the changes to the conditions

nine and ten on the bat and tree reports just to correct the dates to my recent

surveys correct a typo and another condition I want to have the informative

and that's to do with the back licence,

just to double cheque that the applicant

is aware they need to go through that process.

Those in favour of the recommendation as stated.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

Those against?

One.

Abstentions?

I assume, Chairman, you're abstaining in your role as Chairman of the Committee?

Yes, not for anyone.

Just for the benefit of the public watching?

Correct.

I'm following in the footsteps of the Chairman who's not here who always abstains and I felt

that would be the right thing to do.

Thank you very much.

5 Date of next meeting

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:15:45

And now, just to confirm, the date of the next meeting is on Tuesday 31st March at 6 .30pm.

And the day before that, we would have a site visit.

So if many people as possible can make sure that they attend that.

Thank you very much for your time.

I think we have covered a difficult item this evening and I now close the meeting.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman

Conservative

View profile

Mr Leslie Ashton

Democratic Services Officer

Buckinghamshire Council

View profile

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs

View profile

Cllr Cole Caesar

Reform UK

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Matthew Hind

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Thomas Hogg

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Wendy Matthews

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Mr Mike Shires

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 March 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

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

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Apologies for absence

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:00

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:00:48

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:54

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:02:19

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:29

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:37

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:57

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:03:56

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:04:16

4 PL/23/1603/FA Englewood, 21 Amersham Road, Chesham Bois HP6 5PL

Mr Mike Shires - 0:04:51

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:18:25

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:19:46

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:22:51

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:23:04

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:23:23

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:23:59

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:25:13

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:25:26

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:26:21

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:26:50

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:27:16

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:27:41

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:02

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:28:16

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:37

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:28:55

Public Speakers - Objectors - 0:28:59

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:29:22

Mr Mike Shires - 0:30:25

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:31:04

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:31:32

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:34:31

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:34:39

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:50

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:35:57

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:36:18

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:37:17

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:37:30

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:42

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:37:53

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:38:18

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:39:39

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:39:54

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:40:16

Public Speaker - Applicant - 0:40:32

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:43:11

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:20

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:44:10

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:44:52

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:45:26

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:46:00

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:46:06

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:46:34

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:46:46

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:46:51

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:04

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:47:12

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:20

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:47:39

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:47:53

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:48:01

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:49:21

Mr Mike Shires - 0:50:14

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:51:12

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