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

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

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Leslie Ashton
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Arman Alam
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Cllr Arman Alam
  4. Cllr Mark Turner
  5. Cllr Lesley Clarke OBE
  6. Cllr Mark Turner
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Mark Turner
  9. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  10. Public Speaker
  11. Cllr Mark Turner
  12. Public Speaker
  13. Cllr Mark Turner
  14. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  15. Public Speaker
  16. Cllr Mark Turner
  17. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  18. Ray Martin
  19. Cllr Mark Turner
  20. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  21. Ray Martin
  22. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  23. Ray Martin
  24. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  25. Cllr Mark Turner
  26. Ray Martin
  27. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  28. Helen Braine
  29. Ray Martin
  30. Cllr Mark Turner
  31. Cllr Mohammed Ayub
  32. Ray Martin
  33. Cllr Mark Turner
  34. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  35. Helen Braine
  36. Ray Martin
  37. Cllr Mark Turner
  38. Cllr Arman Alam
  39. Cllr Mark Turner
  40. Helen Braine
  41. Cllr Arman Alam
  42. Ray Martin
  43. Cllr Mark Turner
  44. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  45. Ray Martin
  46. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  47. Helen Braine
  48. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  49. Helen Braine
  50. Ray Martin
  51. Cllr Mark Turner
  52. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  53. Ray Martin
  54. Cllr Mark Turner
  55. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  56. Ray Martin
  57. Helen Braine
  58. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  59. Ray Martin
  60. Cllr Mark Turner
  61. Cllr Frances Kneller
  62. Cllr Mark Turner
  63. Ray Martin
  64. Cllr Mark Turner
  65. Cllr Michael West
  66. Cllr Mark Turner
  67. Ray Martin
  68. Cllr Mark Turner
  69. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  70. Cllr Mark Turner
  71. Ray Martin
  72. Cllr Mark Turner
  73. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  74. Cllr Mark Turner
  75. Ray Martin
  76. Cllr Mark Turner
  77. Ray Martin
  78. Cllr Mark Turner
  79. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  80. Cllr Mark Turner
  81. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  82. Cllr Mark Turner
  83. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  84. Cllr Mark Turner
  85. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  86. Cllr Mark Turner
  87. Helen Braine
  88. Cllr Mark Turner
  89. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  90. Cllr Arman Alam
  91. Cllr Mark Turner
  92. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  93. Cllr Arman Alam
  94. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  95. Cllr Arman Alam
  96. Ray Martin
  97. Cllr Arman Alam
  98. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  99. Ray Martin
  100. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  101. Ray Martin
  102. Cllr Mark Turner
  103. Cllr Mark Turner
  104. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  105. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  106. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  107. Cllr Mark Turner
  108. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  109. Cllr Mark Turner
  110. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  111. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  112. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  113. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  114. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  115. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  116. Ray Martin
  117. Cllr Mark Turner
  118. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  119. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Welcome to West Area Planning Committee.
First, the usual housekeeping items.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:00:09
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.
The other item is just the fire exits
which are located at the back of the chamber.
Please follow me.
We congregate outside over the bridge
to the left of the council building in case of a fire.
I'd like to extend a warm welcome
to Councillors Faias and Harris,
though neither of them are here, obviously.
So, and Frances, now you're here as a substitute, are you?
For MoFAS, okay.
I'd just like to play some records,
well, my thanks for Councillor Hind and Sherwell,
who have been here for the rest of the time this year.
Any apologies for absence?
Yes, thanks, Chairman.

1 Apologies for Absence

We've received apologies from Councillors Addo,
Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:01:10
Collingwood and Fiers, and as you noted,
Councillor Nella's kindly subbing for Councillor Fiers.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:17
And declarations of interest?

2 Declarations of Interest

None.
Minutes of the previous meeting

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

held on Wednesday the 18th of February 2026.
If everyone's happy with the minutes, I'll sign them.
Everyone happy?
Everyone happy with the minutes?
Just, yeah, yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
So now we move to the applications.

Planning Applications

This is agenda item four, which is application number

4 24/08021/OUT - 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe HP11 1QL

PL 2408021 -OUT, 22 Marlowe Hill, High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire, HP 11 -1QL, and I'd like to hand over
to Helen Brain who will introduce this item.
Thank you, Helen.
Thank you, Chair.
This application relates to 22 Marlowe Hill.
My apologies.
I've just noted that I was one of the individuals
that called in this application,
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:02:24
and I think I want to bring that to the attention of the committee chairman.
Okay that's fine.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:28
I am open -minded and I shall consider, I haven't made up my mind yet,
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:02:33
and I shall consider all the circumstances.
Thank you, thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:38
Thank you.
This is an outline application for the demolition of the existing dwelling
and the erection of 19 apartments with access, appearance, layout and scale for
consideration today. Landscaping is a reserved matter for a later stage. The
site lies within the High Wycombe settlement area, a tier one location
where new development is directed and sits opposite but outside the Wycombe
Abbey conservation area and registered parking garden. Turning first to the
planning history.
Members may recall that an 82 -bed care home
covering the site and adjoining properties
was originally refused but subsequently allowed
at appeal in March 2023.
This appeal decision is a material consideration
in the decision -making.
This slide also shows,
nope, this slide shows the approved site plan
for the care home scheme which included
the demolition of properties 16 to 22 Marlowe Hill.
This is the first of two 3D visualisations of the approved care home. This slide shows
the front elevation of the consented building.
The second 3D sketch illustrates the rear elevation of the approved care home, including
the associated parking area. So turning to this application, this slide places
the application site in context. On the left, members can see the existing plot
of number 22 Marlowe Hill, which is a large site with a tiered rear garden and
two existing access points from Marlowe Hill. The land rises steeply to the rear.
On the right, the proposed site plan shows the new apartment building would be positioned
broadly in line with the established building line along Marlowe Hill.
The proposed apartment building will incorporate a basement car park, shown here, which provides
19 parking spaces together with cycle and bin storage.
Above the basement, the ground floor will accommodate five apartments with access to
communal amenity space. This slide displays the first, second and third
floor plans which accommodate the remaining apartments. All units comply
with the nationally described space standards. The design also will include
recessed balconies and a green roof.
These are the first set of proposed elevations. The top elevation is the
the neighbouring property at number 20 Marlow Hill. The bottom elevation shows
the rear of the proposed building. The rear elevation. Members can see that the
building comprises four storeys above a basement level. The top elevation here is
the side elevation visible from Wordsworth Road and the adjacent green
space. The bottom elevation shows the front elevation which will face onto Marlowe Hill.
The materials proposed are to be a grey and black multi -brick
palette with black frame windows giving the building a contemporary appearance.
This slide shows an indicative 3D view of how the proposed apartment building
would appear from Marlowe Hill.
We now move on to the site photographs. This is the first of the two existing
access points serving the application site. As members will note there's a
small little map in the bottom left corner showing the directions of the
photographs and this slide shows the second access point. The proposal intends
to reuse both accesses to create an in and out arrangement for parking.
This slide shows the existing dwelling at 22 Marlowe Hill, which will be demolished
to facilitate the development.
Here we can see number 22 on the left in the red brick and the neighbouring property number
20 Marlowe Hill to the right in white render.
As members will note, number 20 sits on slightly higher ground than the application site.
Moving around to the side of the property, this slide shows part of the rear garden and
the steep rise in topography towards the back of the site.
This slide shows the rear elevation of the existing property taken from within the terraced
rear garden. Standing in the middle tier of the rear garden, this slide shows the
view looking towards the rear boundary of the plot. And finally this photograph
captures the full rear elevation of the existing dwelling. To conclude, the
officer recommendation, there is a revised officer recommendation set out
on the first page of the update sheet. The officer recommendation to the
is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions sat out on the report and the
update sheet. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of this resolution,
prior to the decision being issued, the Director of Planning and Environment has delegated
authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman, provided that the changes do not
exceed the substantive nature of the West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee's
resolution. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We have public speaking on this item and we'll hear from people in the following order.
We have Councillor Leslie Clark first, followed by James Webb for objections and David Howells,
who is the agent.
Councillor Clark, you have three minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Lesley Clarke OBE - 0:09:08
You will notice from 4 .12 that there are only 19 parking spaces provided for this proposal
and the inference of the care home quite frankly is ridiculous.
If you actually then look at the county wide parking strategy for residential car parking
standards above 10 dwellings. For every one bedroom you provide one space and
for every two bedroom property you provide 1 .5. And then it says the car
parking standards set out here are optimal standards. The level of parking
they specify should be provided unless specific local circumstances can
justify deviating from them. Proposals for provisions above or below this
standard must be supported by evidence detailing the local circumstances that justify the deviation.
There is nothing in the papers to actually suggest that.
One of your photographs actually showed the building, which is quite high.
Other light issues to number 18 Marlow Hill.
These houses are all wonderful houses.
They're family houses.
It's a shame that it's a problem.
We do have a problem with parking.
There is no parking provided other than double yellow lines and yellow lines on
Wordsworth Road. On Tennyson Road it's permit parking only so there is no
overflow parking. It's unfortunate there are no visitors parking spaces.
I'm impressed that there are the cycle stalls because yes you could probably use your
cycle to go down the hill but I doubt very much you would actually use it to
up the hill because you'd have to be rather, dare one say, sporty to ride a bicycle up
Marlowe Hill. I do have to say some of the timings from the plot to either the bus station
or the railway station or whatever, you'd have to be megalithic to do that. So I think
it should be refused on the lack of parking there is no parking nearby
other than on double yellow lines or yellow lines or permit parking areas and
it's a shame that it hasn't been mentioned although it does say in 4 .12
the proposed level of parking complies with the Buckinghamshire County wide
parking guidance
It doesn't does it
Which is really a concern
So I would ask that perhaps the committee debate this point and consider whether we should be giving permission
Because it is a worry the
infrastructure can't stand can can't take it and why we
Thank You councillor 3 minutes is up
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:12:13
Does anybody have any questions of clarification
from Councillor Clark?
No, okay.
Then our next speaker is Mr. Webb for Objectors.
Mr. Webb, you have three minutes, thank you.
Thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:12:35
This application should be refused
because it creates clear and demonstrable harm
across multiple material planning grounds.
First being overdevelopment and residential amenity,
replacing a single dwelling with a 19 unit block
is a dramatic intensification.
Scale and massing are out of keeping
with the character of detached homes along Marlow Hill
and its neighbouring roads,
and the height and footprint would overshadow
neighbouring gardens and reduce privacy.
The submitted sections and views that were shown here today
showed how clearly that impact will be felt.
On highway safety grounds, NPP F111, Marlow Hill is a steep high -speed A road with poor visibility and a proven collision history.
Thames Valley Police data shows that 80 % of collisions on this stretch occur at private accesses.
Introducing a multi -unit access serving 19 flats would significantly increase turning movements in one of the most hazardous locations in the area.
The Council, the Hospital, Wickham Abbey have all taken steps to reduce access
points on this road in recent history because of safety risks. Approving this
proposal would actively reverse those safety improvements. Relying on
prior consents when the accesses are fundamentally different and worse
despite similar vehicle movement is flawed and should be considered material
and ultimately unimportant to this admission.
Pedestrian safety, the site sits on main walking route
for pupils attending four major schools.
During peak hours, thousands of children use this footway.
Combining steep gradients, poor sight lines
and increased vehicle movements creates a foreseeable
and unacceptable risk to vulnerable users.
Parking stress, as Leslie Clark said,
the proposal fails to meet Buckinghamshire's
parking standards.
There is no realistic provision for visitors,
deliveries or servicing.
Wordsworth Road and Poets Corner Estate
already experienced severe parking pressure
and enforcement is weak.
Overspill would be inevitable from this development
and it would obstruct emergency access.
Precedent and cumulative impact for MPPF 130 and 185,
approving this scheme would set precedent
for similar high density blocks along Marlowe Hill
and Poets Corner, compounding existing issues of traffic,
parking safety and infrastructure pressure in summary the access is unsafe
on a steep high -speed a road with a known collision history pedestrian
safety would be diminished parking over spill is guaranteed and already
problematic the council routinely refuses applications that meet one of
this criteria the proposal this proposal meets several I therefore urge the
committee to refuse planning permission on that basis.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wert.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:15:30
Does anybody have any questions for clarification?
Councillor Raja.
Thank you, quick question.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:15:42
You said the hospital reduced its entrance
or something like that.
How did they reduce the entrance?
and do you know how many properties are on Marlowe Hill that use Marlowe Hill to access homes?
Public Speaker - 0:16:00
So the access and egress into Marlowe Hospital was made exit only from the hospital onto Marlowe
Hill rather than an access only and has heavily enforced on -site no entry provision for the left
as you're travelling downhill into into the site on the basis that it was
causing breaking and it's regularly crossed by vulnerable users travelling to
the school. In terms of private accesses there are few so it's quite easy to
identify where the issues are when you look at the collision data and aligning
it to those crossovers so you've got five detached houses four of which are
adjacent to this plot and then you have the private accesses to Wickham Abbey
opposite of which there are four and then there are a further set of two
private accesses that would be material for this which are closer to the
beyond the Dawes Hill Junction on the northbound side. So effectively this
access point becomes the first off an A road from Marlow Hill as you're
into town there is a private access rather than a street
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:17:18
thank you any other questions with clarification no then in that case
please mr. how's three minutes thank you
Public Speaker - 0:17:29
good evening my name is David house and I'm the plan agent acting on behalf of
the applicant firstly I'd like to thank you for allowing me to represent my
client the applicant here tonight and secondly I'd like to thank the case
officer for her time and the correspondence she has provided having
picked up this application during the assessment process having not been the
original case officer assigned to the application. Having reviewed the
officer report for the application it is clear that a detailed and careful
assessment has been carried out on the scheme submitted and that it clearly
demonstrates to members as to why the scheme complies with relevant policies
of the local plan and also the wording of the MPPF. Important points of note
within the officers report are that there's been no objection raised by the
Highways Department with regards to the proposed access arrangements or the
provision of parking proposed. The Highways comments were reviewed so
received very early on in the initial assessment of the application over a
year ago in February 2025. The officer is clear in their assessment that design
and layout of the scheme represents appropriate development that cannot be
considered as being an over development of the site or constrained or shoehorned
into the plot and that it would result in no material harm to the character of
visual immunity of the area.
With regard to the immunities for the proposed scheme,
these are considered to be appropriate
and meeting local national requirements,
but quite importantly, the scheme would not result
in any harm being caused to neighbouring properties
through overlooking loss of privacy or loss of light.
No objections have been raised
in respect to environmental health matters
or drainage provisions.
With regards to the comments on the trees,
the tree officer confirmed in writing
that they'd not been aware of an extant permission
at the site at the time of seeking
to create a tree preservation order at the site as they had not been provided with any
information from the case officer at the time and had not carried out their own assessment
of the site.
On discovering that there was an extant permission on the site, the tree officer confirmed that
the council could not enforce a tree preservation order on any trees within the site.
The officer is therefore correct in their position that there cannot be any objection
on these grounds.
In light of the comprehensive report made by the officer and that they conclude that
the scheme conforms with the policies set out in the relevant planning documents of
the council is requested that members of the committee support the officers recommendation
for approval for approval. Thank you for your time.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:19:43
Thank you, Mr. House and anybody any questions for clarification, Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:19:49
Thank you. For those of us who attended the site visit this week, it was clear that some
tree works had been carried out probably quite recently at the property could you
just elaborate I understand there wasn't a TPO on the site but can you elaborate
on what those tree works were for why they occurred and do they relate to any
of the trees mentioned any of the ecological reports? No they were trees
Public Speaker - 0:20:14
that were identified to be taken out as part of the application but also had
been identified in the extant permission as being able to be taken out so they
They couldn't be protected.
They weren't there and they weren't shown
as being part of our scheme.
Any other questions?
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:20:33
Okay.
So we now go to technical questions for the officers.
Councillor Townsend first.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:20:54
Thank you. I would really like to unpick the parking issue.
Councillor Clark has alluded to it and I understand there are 19 spaces and there
are 19 apartments but that comes to 23 .5 parking spaces under the zone A parking
guidelines but you're going to tell me that I'm wrong so I'd really like to
understand the parking from your perspective because I don't think it's
covered in the report in full as to why those parking conditions don't apply
called parking guidelines thank you
yes we do need to get to the bottom of this I'm going to take you back a while
Ray Martin - 0:21:44
the original parking standards talked only about a number of bedrooms and
We had a problem with what was being shown on submitted plans
Because obviously if you wanted to get around the parking standards
You could just show what was actually potentially going to be used as a bedroom as a study or a bonus room as people like to
call them
And it wasn't given a very accurate reflection of what the actual occupation of the unit would be
So when the parking standards were revised, they moved the system to do the calculation
on the basis of habitable rooms.
And if you look at the standards, the document, it refers to habitable rooms.
It does also mention bedrooms, but that's there as a guidance in terms of you would
expect that number of bedrooms in a property with this number of habitable rooms.
in terms of the
Use of the guidance we have ever since this one has been
adopted
Used habitable rooms as the calculator and all of the units that we have in this development
Have four or less habitable rooms
Therefore the standard of one space per unit is the correct standard and that's where why the highways
Authority are saying it's policy compliant
it's more than that because
Those spaces are going to be unallocated. So they're not going to be allocated specifically to the units
That provides a degree of flexibility
And if you read the highway authorities
Comments, they're saying that therefore means that you don't need
specific spaces for visitors, so I
I encourage you to read the highways comments in full. I've explained why they've adopted the approach they have and
We agree. It is policy compliant
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:23:53
But I don't see where that sorry may I just come back I
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:23:55
Looked at the parking standard. I
Don't it clearly says habitable rooms or bedrooms
Why where where in this that where in the standard does it say that you can just use habitable rooms as the as the criteria?
as opposed to bedrooms.
Why has that decision been made?
As I said, it was born out of what came before
Ray Martin - 0:24:14
where it was just referring to number of bedrooms.
The introduction of habitable rooms
was intended to be more accurate
and ever since that's been adopted,
that's the measure we have used.
But it doesn't say that in the parking standards, does it?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:24:36
I mean that because these are these are the rules these are the guidelines that
we're that we're adhering to so if common practise has evolved that it's
habitable rooms then that that surely needs to be updated in the guidance or
because it's it's unclear as to how we get to those numbers I agree with you it
Ray Martin - 0:24:58
need updating. The standards are now quite long established and it would be
really helpful if there was a revision of those and an update and I understand
their plan to be in the new local plan. Because from our point of view we have
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:25:16
these guidelines that we are told to go and look at and apply to a certain case.
How then, but then you tell us and I understand it's the working
position you tell us that you work this out on the basis of habitable rooms etc
I don't I also don't see the point about unallocated spaces making up for not
having visitor parking I understand the rationale behind it I don't see that
covered in the guidance either so it's very difficult for us then to have a
reference point to make this decision all we can do is then hear you saying oh
well it's okay this is the way we do it but we don't that's not it doesn't
reflect the written rules so I'm struggling with this well we also have
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:25:57
issue the fact that the highways officers have spoken and and they it is
it's difficult to go against our own experts when we do these things that's
one of the problems that we have
I mean I accept it is an interpretation but it's not an interpretation that's
Ray Martin - 0:26:13
mine it's an interpretation that's in the highway authorities comments and
it's one that officers in dealing with any applications
have adopted and do it in the same way.
Councillor Raju, sorry, you were next.
Thank you, I was gonna ask about parking standards,
but you've covered it.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:26:41
It's been alluded by the objectors
about the height situation of the building
compared to the next one.
I know there's a difference in levels because the next store is higher, but having a four -storey
building next to it, can we have some clarification on that one, please?
Yes.
Helen Braine - 0:27:05
As you can see that the bottom elevation, you can see on the right -hand side of the
bottom elevation, you've got number 20.
So in terms of the this it's going to be stepped away it's going to be three
storeys adjacent number 20 and then the the four -storey bulk is further on the
green side so it's approximately a similar height in terms of number 20 on
the three -storey element the four -storey is probably about one and a half higher
Can I just add to that?
The reason the officer explained the history of the site to you is because that has to
Ray Martin - 0:27:54
be taken as a reference point and the scheme that was previously permitted on this site
for the care home in terms of the size and bulk of the building is very similar to what's
in front of you now and that's been accepted as a form and bulk and size of
development on the site by a planning inspector so we have to have regard to
that
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:28:29
so just money counsellor did you want to say something thank you thank you what
Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:28:35
What about if neighbouring properties applies for like similar, post -similar application?
So where do we stand?
Line number 18 was 20, similar type of application.
Ray Martin - 0:28:57
Yeah, I mean, obviously we'd have to consider an application on its merits if it came in.
I'm gonna be totally open and honest with you.
I'd be surprised if something didn't.
If this goes ahead, then it would make it more likely
that the other plots will probably come forward
for development.
But in terms of their impact in the street,
then a similar form and size of building
will probably be acceptable.
The situation with regard to parking and intensification
would obviously be looked at in terms of highway issues at the time of that
application I don't think there would be any guarantee that they would all be
granted big blocks of flats on by any stretch of the imagination
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:29:43
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:29:47
Councillor Roger mr. Martin as you alluded to the previous application was
that on two sides or one side obviously we're taking that into consideration
Helen Braine - 0:30:02
The previous care home approved our appeal covered four plots.
So it does set the, it kind of sets not the precedent per se but it's acceptable in
principle for redevelopment of that size along that stretch of the road.
So it was plot 16 to 22, so 22 is the end plot.
And it's, let's just get up the site plan.
There we go.
So the last part of, let's say where the last L wing
at the back, that's approximately where 22 is.
Yeah.
I think it's probably worth pointing out as well.
I think it also covers the precedent of ingress and egress from the sites as well
Yes, I think it does I mean obviously the difference with this game being spread across all four sites
Ray Martin - 0:31:06
Is that you don't get building across the whole frontage and that's why I'm saying
This wouldn't set a precedent for the others to do exactly the same
Because there is a degree of openness on one side of the site and indeed
Part of the overall four plots were being used for parking purposes. So
this isn't the
Straw breaking the camel's back in terms of we're going to end up with big four big blocks along here because it won't necessarily work
like that
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:31:38
Counsellor Alan Thank You chairman
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:31:42
Two questions I have for clarification purposes, please
There's a road behind the Wickham General Hospital, Barracks Road, and there's also
another road, I think Wonsworth Road, which comes off onto Marlowe Hill, and I've access
to use both of these to Marlowe Hill.
Marlowe Hill's a very busy road, and cars are often travelling 30 to 40 miles per hour
because that's the limit on those roads.
And it could be extremely dangerous to turn from either Barrack Road or Wonsworth Road
onto Marlowe Hill.
It's a one -way road.
Has there been any consideration of the impact upon the traffic or the situation of Marlowe
Hill as a result of these additional, slightly to lead to additional traffic activity on
Marlowe Hill?
That's the first question I have.
The second question is in relation to the tree officer's views in respect to this application.
The tree officer has opposed this application because of the impact upon the trees fronting
this property. Do we simply ignore the tree officer's comments and his views on this?
Because it's not very clear to me where we go with the tree officer's opinion, because
he's made it very clear I oppose this application and this is the reason I oppose it. And I
haven't really seen any justification for ignoring that view or opinion that's been
given by the tree officer.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:33:14
Helen Braine - 0:33:20
So firstly in terms of the highway impact on Marlowe Hill, yes the highways authority
would look at the trip generation, the use of the site etc that's proposed and they've
deemed it no objection to the scheme in terms of highway safety as well as parking provision.
In terms of the comments of the tree officer, these comments we've received before I was
case officer on this one so it was the previous case officer and from my
understanding of the how the application progressed tree preservation order was
made by the tree officer at the time but it was not confirmed so there's no
protection of the trees etc on the existing site. Something else to mention
is that landscaping is a reserve matter on this application so we would be
looking, we've put conditions on there in terms of saying that we need to retain
sort of what we can etc and also what proposed plans are we going in so we
expect a comprehensive landscaping scheme to be put back because obviously
it's quite a verdant area next door to the hill. So yes that's where we were.
So can I just clarify that tree point. So is it being said that if there's no
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:34:40
tree protection order or preservation order then there's no protection for
that tree so does that mean that anybody can knock down a tree which doesn't have
a tree preservation order in High Wycombe? If it's not in the conservation area yes.
the parking space.
not being used in the
Ray Martin - 0:34:59
So I think that's a good
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:35:06
Any other questions?
Councillor Townsend.
Thank you. I've got two
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:35:11
questions. The first is coming
back to parking. Sorry.
I did read the highways
comments. And I've just gone
back to them to double cheque. They say section 3 paragraph 15 of submitted
transport statement comments that the 19 parking spaces will be unallocated
meaning that the development is not required to provide an additional 20 % of
allocated spaces for visitor parking. The transport statement it refers to that's
the statement submitted by the applicant yes the developer. It doesn't give any
other explanation or reasoning it doesn't refer me back to the parking
standards to explain why 19 spaces is acceptable. I just I can't I can't get
past that because it's all very well saying well this is the way we do it but
that's not what the guidance says for the optimal number of parking spaces.
I'm just I'm trying to I'm trying to apply I'm trying to find the rule and
apply it and I can't find the rule to apply. I don't know what else to say the
Ray Martin - 0:36:14
the highway authority obviously acutely aware of our parking standards they've
assessed this application knowing those standards and they've reached the
conclusion it's acceptable in those terms so they're in agreement with the
explanation I've given you
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:36:32
okay well I think I have to agree to disagree on that one because I can't see
how the parking standards are met in this instance.
My second question is,
I wonder if you could talk us through
the balancing exercise that you've gone through on this,
weighing up the different considerations,
because there are a lot of things
missing on this development.
There's a biodiversity net loss of 17 .45%,
which I accept can be compensated for in different ways,
it's not necessarily on site.
There's zero affordable units being provided.
And I know that you've received the viability statement
on that and gone through that.
We've got concerns about parking,
we've got concerns about road safety,
we've got concerns about the appearance of it
in the middle of a conservation area.
Can you talk us through the balancing exercise
that you've gone, because to my mind,
it looks like there's not very much going for this
other than adding 19 units to the housing target figures.
I'm just trying to see what I'd like to understand the thought process. Thank you.
I can try and explain firstly it's not in the conservation area
Helen Braine - 0:37:45
It's on the it's yeah the other side of Marlowe here was the conservation area
Obviously councillors know we haven't got a five -year supply so we
It means that the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11d is triggered.
Paragraph 11d, if I refer you to section 4 .2 of the committee report, there's two LIMS.
So where the policies are out of date, and obviously we're out of date because the locational policies are out of date because there's no five year supply.
The first limb is the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets
of particular importance, provide a strong reason for refusing development.
Footnote 7 sets out the assets and the protection areas as you might call it.
And those include sites of scientific area, sites of scientific interest, green belt,
habitats, habitation sites, local green spaces, national landscapes of the Chilterns, national
park, irreplaceable habitats, heritage assets, and areas at risk of flooding in coastal elements.
Because the Conservation Officer did not object to the scheme, so there's no harm identified
to the conservation area. That LIM 1 is passed so we then move on to LIM 2
which is any adverse impacts of doing so would significant and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the MPPF taken
as a whole and there's other bits that you take into consideration such as
sustainable location, effective use of land etc. So the assessment involves if
If there's any harm identified is that harm significant and demonstrable harm and
Here none was found to be significant and demonstrable no harm was identified in short
Highways said it was okay the design
In my opinion as a planner I thought was okay
Impacts to the neighbours were okay impacts on flooding were okay impacts on ecology will be
dealt with later, so they technically are neutral.
And so in terms of the balancing, you then come to,
once you've gone through each of those issues,
you then come to the overall conclusion
in terms of what are the benefits versus what is the harm.
The harm is there is no harm or it's neutral.
And then the benefits are,
because of the very low housing number,
the benefits of housing are always seen as significant,
or you give them significant weight.
So obviously you're in a scheme where we need housing, there's no harm, the
provision is is that we should be approving sustainable development and
that's where we come to the recommendation of approval subject to
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:41:06
conditions. And if the parking in your view was unacceptable how would that
affect the weight of your balancing exercises? Hypothetically if the parking
Helen Braine - 0:41:15
had been unacceptable the parking would the lack of parking would have had to
have caused significant and demonstrable harm because it's a sustainable location
we you would probably have to think very carefully about whether we would be
asking for the optimum absolute optimum standards in this situation because it's
a stable location. Sometimes highways accept car free developments in the
centre of High Wycombe. So the fact that we have 19 parking spaces, one for each
flat, I think is a very good thing for where we are.
Can I just phrase that in a slightly different way? And the answer is it
It depends.
Ray Martin - 0:42:03
If you were a handful of spaces down,
then you might give that moderate weight.
If you were dozens of spaces down,
you might give that significant weight.
But I draw you back to the point
that because the tilted balance is applied,
those harms have to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the significant benefit of the housing provision so any I any harm you
identify you have that all together and it has to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the significant benefit of the housing provision we obviously aren't in
that position that's that's what we're recommending can I just add something as
well because I think the other point is the fact that there's not a lot of space
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:42:55
for displacing the parking so if you happen to own a flat there you are going
to understand that it may be that if if you have a car that at some point you
not be able to park there and and then you would have to find somewhere else so
it's kind of self -regulating because there is nowhere else to park a lot of
the other roads are all as we've said earlier they've got permit parking or
double yellow lines or what have you so there's not a lot of other options can I
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:43:29
just ask about the your comment about the ecological being neutral reserve
later can you just elaborate on that
let me find the page I think it's covered with options for purchasing
Ray Martin - 0:43:43
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:43:45
units off site? Yes, that is correct. And so how do we know how is that enforced? How
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:43:53
do we know it's going to happen? Who police is that? Because you know it's all very well
leaving nature for last, isn't it? But we need to make sure it happens. The regulations
Ray Martin - 0:44:05
require an applicant to submit a biodiversity game plan to us for approval. So it has to
approved by us. Yeah it's enforced in the same way as a planning condition will be
forced. There is actually a planning condition that we put on things because
Helen Braine - 0:44:21
it's got to be covered for 30 years so the habitat management and monitoring
plan covers at least 30 years to secure that what we have got.
Councillor Raja.
Thank you, chairman.
A couple of questions from me again.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:44:42
I have still got this high issue thing.
Just going through the papers, 4 .26, only one neighbouring property would be directly
affected by the proposed development, 20 miler hill to the northeast.
There are no other residential properties adjoining the application site, so there is
an issue there that if you could please enlighten me on.
And the other thing is, which I find a bit weird,
is on this update sheet is furthermore,
the applicant's viability assessment has demonstrated
that the fully policy compliant Section 106 package
is not achievable.
It is therefore unlikely that healthcare contributions
could be sustained in any event so can I have two clarifications on that you've
got 19 flats being made they're not going to be cheap and then the viability
kicks in there that they can't make a donation 106 so I'm not looking at you
Mr. Martin
Ray Martin - 0:45:56
Yeah, the officer explained this that in
In any development proposal that's put in front of us actually the NHS thing is a
Add -on which I'll come back to
but in this case we identified the need for affordable housing and that would be a requirement and
normal circumstances
But also set out in our policies it says where it can be demonstrated that the development wouldn't be viable
with contributions that we will waive those requirements for contributions and
the developer has had to
Submit us a financial statement
Setting out the the cost of the development. We have commissioned an independent report
for that to be assessed and looked at.
And that independent report has come back
and said yes, it would not be viable
for contributions to be made in this case.
So we have accepted that it meets our policy requirements
in that respect and we can't get the affordable housing
that we would normally expect.
Coming back to the NHS, this has come very late in the day.
This is not something we consulted on.
In fact, I'm thinking of last committee. We had a debate on this subject
Last committee I explained to you that that particular development wasn't eligible because it didn't meet the threshold this one does
And under normal circumstances we would require a contribution for NHS in the same way as we would for affordable housing
but
And there's a big but that's only very recently been introduced as a requirement
and this application has been hanging around for a long time.
And it would have been unfair to actually ask for a contribution in respect of that
because that wasn't required when the application was submitted.
But even if you didn't accept that argument,
and what you've just read out to me there,
is it's not viable in terms of providing affordable housing,
So it's reasonable to assume it won't be viable in terms of providing NHS contribution either. That's that's what that updates about
Any other technical questions
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:48:18
Sorry council no
Cllr Frances Kneller - 0:48:25
In the thank you chair in the absence of a five -year plan
I think most of us will say very pleased to hear 19 new units are coming along
However, this issue over affordable housing I find extremely frustrating
The section 106 is not a new requirement. The levels obviously will be variable but
People
developers know that there will be an expectation that there should be an element of affordable housing and
and the policy actually expects a development
of 10 or more, 35%.
I appreciate what was said in terms of it
being relatively new and the levels,
but I think any developer coming to a planning committee
or to planning knows that there is an expectation
affordable housing is required.
We're desperately short of affordable housing
across the district.
And so I'm absolutely quite shocked really.
we talk about a viability appraisal and so that it says here no on -site or
off -site affordable housing contribution not even a 10 % contribution or even a
5 % contribution and the impact of this is really significant because in the
notes that we've got here is the fact that in relation to no plan to allocate
sill towards primary care so any medication can only be funded by section
Manu 6, which isn't coming over the hill. I just think we should be quite clear
that if we are developing schemes we expect affordable housing contributions.
I appreciate that building costs are going up and trying to get people to do
this job makes schemes expensive but the bottom line is you know these rules to
fund affordable housing are there for a reason and I feel very uncomfortable
when we see schemes coming where there's not even an element at all. So that
that is my key concern. I've got another point I think the parking is quite
valid in terms of the concerns that we raise. With a background in housing
management I know already the problems are going to come through with
unallocated parking spaces. All you need is a couple in a one -bedroom flat they've
both got a car I was there first two spaces are gone what happens to the rest?
the management side of that, we shouldn't just be thinking about the building that is going there,
we need to think about the quality of life of people who live there.
And if you haven't got enough parking spaces, it's all fine saying,
well they're going to have to find a space somewhere else.
Well, looking at the map, there's not anything really near to do it.
How many of us on a regular basis get complaints that people are parking in their streets
because they can't find a parking space because there's two, three or even four cars in a family?
So I feel quite concerned that this parking issue is not being addressed adequately. We need more parking spaces
And from a housing management point of view, I would say I want allocated spaces because that saves all the hassle. That's your space
That's where you park and you effectively have one car for one household
Two cars in one household is gonna cause mayhem in where we're in whatever situation
issue it is. The other thing also does give me some concern we're obviously
looking at this one scheme we we agree what if we agreed one scheme with 19
units unallocated parking and then we have the domino effect down the down the
road the next family says oh I'll perhaps I'll sell my house and we'll build
another 19 houses 19 flats with not enough parking spaces we've then got
access onto the hill.
I think the issue about access onto Marlowe Hill
is really a difficult one.
It is a busy road, it's a fast road.
You've got young people, families walking up and down
that road to get to schools and to facilities.
And my concern is that we start with this one,
we'll end up a number of units.
So there are three points there that I think we need
to consider in long -term planning,
rather than just an application is in front of us
we sign it off thank you council in Ellen I think I agree with you in lots
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:42
of things I think particularly visitors for instance you know these flats are
most likely going to be young people and therefore there will be a degree of
people visiting them and vice versa so it is a it is an issue but I don't know
what conditions can be put on those if anything anyway I'll leave that to the
officers can I just come back on the point you made about the section 106
Ray Martin - 0:53:04
been long -standing absolutely in relation to affordable housing I think
you slightly misunderstood the requirement in terms of the NHS asking
for contributions is the relatively recent addition to us not the affordable
housing one and yes we would normally be looking for affordable housing on this
but there is provision within national policy which enables developers to make
the case that it's not viable and it meets that policy so that's the
difficulty we have
in respect to the parking I can only
Say what I've said before our highway authority who are our specialists advising us in regard to parking and highway safety
Are telling us that this is sufficient to meet our standards in terms of parking
Where's the evidence to go against that advice from our specialists the the highway safety is a slightly different point
In terms of the access on to the busy road and yes
We all know this is a busy road and there has been a history of some collisions along there and we should be concerned about
Adding to that potential problem
But the highway Authority in respect of this application
has judged this against what's already been permitted with the nursing home and come to the conclusion that the
the difference between this and what's already been accepted
is not so different that we could justify a refusal in those terms.
That wouldn't necessarily follow for future development on the other plots.
It may well be if we came in with a scheme for another 20, 40, whatever,
the highway authority could turn around and say,
We've now reached the point where the intensification of the use of accesses onto this road is now
Demonstrably dangerous and we could therefore refuse an application for that reason
So it wouldn't automatically follow the other plots will be developed in the same way
And I think we've had this in quite a few
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:55:12
committees before where we have highways who've given us their opinions and we don't necessarily agree with them but the
difficulty is that we then have a situation where if this goes to appeal
and we go against our own experts we lose it's one of the problems so it's a
difficult difficult decision on these particular ones the other point is that
the road does go from 40 down to 30 just before Wordsworth Road so it is
strictly speaking a 30 mile an hour limit
If there are no more technical questions for the officers, would anybody like to start
the debate?
Councillor West.
Thank you.
Cllr Michael West - 0:56:03
I have great difficulty with this application.
There are so many elements of it which I regard as borderline.
There are the reports from ecology officers, from conservation officers, from highways about traffic and parking.
They could all have objected. They would all have been justified in objecting to this development.
but they haven't done and therefore when you look at it on balance now you can
say that the provision of these apartments far outweighs the objections
or the downsides of this development but I can't actually I find myself in the
same position that we've been in several times before that you're asking us to
I can't do it.
I understand the position that the case officers are in
and I understand the position that they take,
but I think Council Townsend has raised very valid points
about parking and the parking provision.
It seems almost impossible that we're in a situation
where the guidelines are not actually the guidelines that you're using.
you're using something different.
But we as Councillors are not actually informed of that
in the first place.
The best I can do here is abstain, right?
But I will understand if people feel they need
to vote in favour of this.
I think those that do vote in favour
will not be particularly happy with the decision
they've made, but it's just, here we are again
between the devil and the deep blue.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:58:04
I think there's an issue as well,
which I mean, perhaps we could just have clarification
on the appeal and what the inspector has said
about certain things, because I think that,
a lot of the time, there's a big development
for whatever happens and it goes to appeal,
and then on that site, it then says that
It's not refused on certain items.
It then becomes difficult to refuse them on those items
when something comes back later.
That's a slight different version.
I don't know if that's the situation in this,
but if there's anything without ilk.
Ray Martin - 0:58:47
So from memory, the essence of what the inspector
was saying on the nursing home scheme
in terms of the highway safety issue was that the ability to enter the site, turn
around and come out through sort of formal accesses was actually an
improvement on the current situation because that doesn't currently happen.
So notwithstanding the reservations that our highways people made on the initial
Application the inspector overturned that and said that it was acceptable in highway safety terms and
We don't necessarily have to like that as a position
but we must have regard to that and
Given that that's a decision made by the planning inspectors. It has to be material in our consideration of this application and
We really would be opening ourselves to
Costs an appeal if we went against that without good reason
Well, I'm only telling you the situation
I'm not saying you can't do that
It is a material consideration and one we have to be aware of
Counsellor Townsend
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:00:10
fully appreciate the point about the
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:00:13
the appeal inspectors decision and we have to stick in line with that.
Where is the analysis that shows that the decision that the care home generates or triggers
the same high or solves the same highway safety concerns and trip generations as this particular
application?
What, how do we get to that point where we say okay these two are presenting exactly
the same problems therefore we have to follow the appeal judgement at what point
can we say well actually that appeal judgement concerns a building that is
significantly different to the current application when can we step away from
that and similarly with the parking issue if we as councillors believe that
that guidance that the guidelines have not been correctly applied by our
experts at what point are we able to say that we don't we don't accept those or
or are we always going to be then open,
exposing ourselves to appeals?
Can we also just look at the different uses as well,
because I think that's one of the other things
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:01:20
that the old application was C2.
This is residential.
Is there, I think, perhaps just clarifying
some planning law on that?
Because presumably a commercial business
would have a different parking standard to.
I hear what you say and if you read the Highways comments,
Ray Martin - 1:01:42
the whole of that analysis isn't there.
I accept that.
But all I can do is assure you that they have done
that analysis and what you've got in front of you
is their findings having done that analysis.
That's their job.
So they may not have set out mathematically
what the sort of equivalent rates are
and all the rest of it,
but they certainly have done that analysis
and they've set in front of you what the findings of that analysis is.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:02:16
Yeah, please.
Just to add on really is that, yeah, as you can see in the highway authorities comments,
as Ray says, there isn't a detailed mathematical analysis.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:02:29
What they're doing is presenting you with the outcome of the exercise that they've carried out.
and ultimately we do have to be guided by our highways authority experts in a
session in assessing such matters and also applying their parking guidance
because otherwise I really do have to caution that if we go against our own
experts who do this on a daily basis they're the qualified experts they they
know how to apply these things if we reject it without our sales being
experts and without having contrary technical evidence then if it goes to a
pill we really are at risk of cost for an inspector because the inspector will
look at the technical analysis of the highways authorities work and their
conclusions that they've reached so that that is the risk if we don't follow a
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:33
whether or not it's enforceable in terms of the NHS costs, which we touched on briefly.
Are there any other conditions that are able to be put on this application?
Sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you mean by enforceable.
Ray Martin - 1:03:49
Earlier we were talking about the NHS contributions.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:57
Is that something that as a condition can be put on or are you saying that isn't a condition that can be put on?
So right
Ray Martin - 1:04:07
What I'm saying is that's only been
Introduced as a requirement relatively recently and the submission of this application
Predated to that so there's a question of whether or not it would be reasonable to ask for it at this stage
But if you did conclude that we should be asking for it at this stage, in the knowledge
that we have that they are demonstrating that the scheme is not viable for affordable housing,
how can it be viable for a contribution for the NHS is the conclusion that we've presented
to you.
So we don't think it would be reasonable to require it.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:04:52
Councillor Roger.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:05:00
I've been listening to everything and what our legal services officer has said as well.
I think we're in a difficult position where we as councillors, we have to make the decision
that's in front of us of what we think, right?
and obviously officers have to tell us what is right as well.
But I do think sometimes I do wonder
when costs are thrown at us
and we have to make a decision in a certain way,
we've been pushed in a certain way,
which as a representative of my residence,
I was then elected to do that.
I'm just here to look at the situation,
the ground and make that decision.
Cost doesn't come into that if residents are affected
by parking living standards and I can see that
my judgement won't accept, you know, costs in that way
saying, oh yeah, we're gonna get costs put on us
if I make what I think is the right decision.
And that's why I was voted here and to sit here to make that decision cost doesn't come into it
it's living standards and
parking so
It's all good listening to the case studies and all that but
Sometimes we have to make that decision that we think is right as well and at this moment
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:06:39
But I think that sorry to cut you off that but I think the difficulty is that we are not here to
reinvent the wheel and re -decide what is good.
We are here to discuss whether or not the planning policy,
it's not whether the planning policy is right,
it's whether it's being applied correctly.
And when we have highways officers who are trained in this,
we can't go against highways officers in this situation.
And the fact is that whether you agree or disagree,
we're here effectively to scrutinise the decision making,
but on certain things we can't.
and highways is one of them.
So I appreciate that in some instances
there are things that are difficult to swallow,
but nevertheless, if they are,
it's not for us just to make an emotional decision,
let's put it that way.
Councillor Townsend.
If not an emotional decision,
if we think that the highways
hasn't applied the standard correctly,
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:07:33
what are we supposed to do?
Are we just supposed to go, oh, okay then,
you haven't done it right this time, but nevermind.
or do we say no we think this hasn't been this hasn't been applied correctly
and no one has explained why it has been applied correctly or why highways have
said that and I appreciate that the experts but sometimes experts get
things wrong so at what point do we scrutinise the experts does there isn't
one of them here tonight we can't do it so when do we perform that function as a
committee
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:08:04
I'm guessing not a committee I'm guessing that's part of the planning
process so when it's going through planning if the highways officer puts a
comment on and you are a counsellor you probably get to challenge that I guess
but not by the time the decisions made I don't think
Councillor Roger do you understand what you've said German the other thing okay
I agree with what you've just said.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:08:33
The viability report on the 106 section,
I've never ever seen one of those in a planning committee.
Can we request that to see the viability report?
Or no, we don't get to see that.
We just take it on word that somebody's seen it
and made the decision.
It's an independent analyst who does it.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:08:58
So it's commissioned by,
It's not an agent or the developer themselves that does that.
It's done through an independent analyst, commissioned by the box.
As committee members, we're not allowed to see it?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:09:14
No, it's confidential.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:09:18
Okay. Well, I don't know how that helps.
the
discussion on the
In terms of the viability assessment, it is independently
Helen Braine - 1:10:10
assessed. It's gone through the assessor twice. And, yes, it
has been found that the scheme is unviable if affordable
housing is on site or if a contribution is put in lieu of
affordable housing.
In terms of commercial, because it's
commercially sensitive information,
we keep it sensitive.
You can, in accordance with the planning practise guidance,
have a publicly available version, et cetera.
But we don't have that to hand for this one.
All the information presented is in its commercially sensitive
format.
But it has been independently scrutinised.
and even we as planners have to take the what the independent assessor has said.
Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:11:05
So does that mean that the you said you have to take on board what the independent assessor
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:11:09
has said so does that effectively make the decision for you?
It's an it's an independent decision maker you can't then say okay I hear you but actually
we disagree.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you, Chairman.
It's been an interesting discussion.
Cllr Arman Alam - 1:11:28
I appreciate that we're going to be mindful of the fact that if we refuse an application, it's potentially going to go to an appeal.
there could be cost consequences involved. However that said I think what
this committee is being invited to do is make a decision on this application in
somewhat vacuum of information and that concerns me and what I'm thinking is is
it possible for first of all this report redacted as it may be to be released to
the committee members and also is it possible to go back to the highways
officers because the appeal that was rejected or sorry the appeal that was allowed in relation to a
bigger building probably didn't take into consideration the fact that this was going to be now a
development of flats where there's going to be a lot more in and out traffic so is it possible to
go back to the traffic officers and seek clarification as to their views in respect of this and
and furthermore that report being provided.
And is it possible then that this matter come back to this committee
for it to be assessed again?
I know it's not an ideal scenario,
but I am concerned that we're being invited to make a decision
in somewhat of a vacuum of information.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:12:54
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:13:07
I would say in relation to a redacted version of the viability report, I mean
it would depend on how it's been set out and whether it would be possible to
redact the report and leave wording in it so that it makes sense. I think I'd
have to hand over to the officers to advise on that because otherwise
there's no point redacting a document where what's left you can't really make
sense of it. But also maybe something to consider is that the MPPG does say that
if there are exceptional circumstances where a full report can't be published
that an executive summary could be prepared,
and it does set out how an executive summary
can be prepared and how to set out that information
so that the confidential, not confidential,
commercial sensitive information isn't publicised.
So maybe that is something to consider
as a way around the concern.
In relation to the Highways Authority,
going back to seek clarification,
I mean, I think I just go back to what I said before.
I mean, the Highways Authority, they will have carried out their exercise and looking
at the trip generations and the mathematical evidencing of how they've got to the conclusion
that they have.
So I don't really see that there's much benefit in it.
My apologies for interrupting, but therein lies the difficulty because it seems from
Cllr Arman Alam - 1:14:36
the report that their conclusions are based on the fact that the appeal was allowed on
that point and therefore there's a vacuum in that we don't really know if that was taken
into consideration or not and what their views are.
Sorry, could you just clarify so what's not taken into consideration?
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:14:57
Cllr Arman Alam - 1:15:01
So the fact of the traffic for the proposed development onto Marlow Hill, the suggestion
was that that would have been taken into consideration.
But if you look at the report, it seems to suggest that their views were based upon the
appeal being allowed.
But of course, that development was significantly different from this proposal.
So it's not very clear whether they've taken that into account or simply accepted that
the appeal was allowed on the previous occasion.
They haven't set out the maths to compare the two, excepted, but they certainly have
Ray Martin - 1:15:30
taken it into account because that's what they're asked to do so they will
have looked at the trip generation right from that type of development they'll
have looked at the trip generation from this type of development and then they
made a comparison their reference to the appeal scheme is that it's relevant to
the consideration not that they're relying on the conclusion of that scheme
and ignoring what's proposed under this one
That may be a fair point, it's just the impression that I get from the actual report.
Cllr Arman Alam - 1:16:01
Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:16:06
Can I just clarify, is there another document that we should be looking at from the Highways
Authority?
I couldn't see anything on the planning portal, so we're basing these two very important considerations,
the parking issue and the highway safety on five small paragraphs in a report.
there isn't the analysis in there,
but there isn't even an executive summary
of whatever analysis has been undertaken.
And you're asking us to just say,
oh okay, well we know they've done the job.
And I'm sure you do know they've done the job,
but we don't, and how can we act,
how can we do our job on the basis of five small paragraphs
with zero analysis?
I agree with I agree with my fellow Councillor here that we it's very
difficult for us to make that decision in this sort of vacuum there isn't
enough information from highways for us to allow us to make a decision either
way because these two are very very critical issues for this application
parking and highways safety
Ray Martin - 1:17:15
I mean they're employed by the council to give us that specialist advice no
there isn't another document that's what they presented to us as their findings
I'm not sure how I can help you further because what will happen if you decide
you feel so strongly about this that you want us to take that away and go back
and ask them for more information is that they'll come back with an explanation of what they've done, but exactly the same findings.
It almost sounds as though you don't trust the highways authority.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:17:52
Can I just come back on that? It's their job, yes, they are employed by the council to do that job. Completely agree.
We are elected and our purpose is to scrutinise the work of the council.
And without the work of the council being in front of us. We cannot do our jobs and scrutinise it
So I please don't make the assumption that I don't trust highways are doing their job, but you must allow us to do our job
No, no, I accept your point and I wasn't
Ray Martin - 1:18:17
That was a purely tongue -in -cheek
Comment from my behalf. I mean if you do feel very strongly about it, then yes
There is scope for us to take this away defer the item and bring it back
But my warning to you is I'm not sure it's actually going to get you
Anywhere other than back to the same conclusions and information that's in front of you now, but that would be your entitlement
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:18:45
So mr.
Can I just, I think that one of the things
with planning in general is that
while we're scrutinising things,
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:19:02
we're not necessarily going on a deep, deep dive
into every one of our own consultants
to see if they've done their jobs properly.
So under normal circumstances, I think with the committees,
what we're normally doing is assessing other items.
But when one of our own experts tells us
that it's fine and this is where we end up.
So I think we can do that, we can defer it
if it's necessary to have that and to get the things
so that you can see how it works
if that's what you want to do.
With respect to her, I don't think we're asking
for a deep dive here, we're just asking
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:19:44
for the residents' concerns, for our concerns
to be addressed, the parking and the breakdown
of how those numbers have been reached
and how the guidance is supposed to be acceptable
has been raised by so many of the consultees,
the residents, the councillors who called it in,
and it has not been addressed in this report.
We're not asking for a deep dive.
We want to know how the appeal judgement
is applicable here in terms of highway safety.
I don't think we're asking for a deep dive.
I just don't think we've got enough information
to make a decision safely.
Councillor Roger.
Thank you, I'm sure Mr. Martin will hate me for saying this,
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:20:25
but can I propose something like,
can we defer this, the decision,
until we have sufficient information about the parking,
et cetera, et cetera, and 106 agreement as Mrs.,
sorry, our legal service officer has said,
because 106, you know, whatever we'd like to see
what the workings are was regarding that as well.
So there's a number of issues.
One, Councillor Tanzan said, one, I've said,
so there's two.
Can that be taken into consideration as a proposal?
To defer it till we get the information,
bring it back to committee?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:21:29
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:21:32
Okay, so can we clarify what the proposal is then?
So the purpose is it the valuation specifically
that we're talking about the highways
how they came to the decision that they do.
Yeah, so I think that's a good question.
So, well we want to know, they say that the parking
provision is policy compliant.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:21:52
We want to understand why, because on our reading
of the policy, or a layman's reading of the policy,
it's not compliant.
We also want to know what comparisons have been drawn
between the previous application of the 82 bed care home
and the current application to allow highways to say that
They don't have any safety concerns in terms of the highways. So what was it? What are that? What are the
What makes the two?
Similar enough that we have feel we are bound by the appeal judgement
What about the affordable housing
But obviously
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:22:36
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:22:39
The legal officer said we can't go into depth, but you know, we'll get some form of explanation
you see redacted document or executive summary,
something of that nature.
Sorry.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:22:50
And also the additional report we received tonight
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:22:56
states that the request for health care contribution
has not been supported by the required performer.
But given the advanced stage of the application, any delay,
you didn't want to delay it basically to wait for them
to give this performer.
So can we request that as well if they
want to try and rely on that to make a this is the the ICB representation yes
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:23:22
so in the officer comments yeah on the report we received today yeah it
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:23:27
basically says the ICB have put in this request for section 106 money yes and
they haven't put the necessary workings out support there yeah but if we're
this additional time to look into the highways issues could we also give them
the opportunity to put that forward
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:23:48
can I just come in whilst you're contemplating I assume you would find it
helpful if when this comes back if we have the highways officer here to
Ray Martin - 1:24:06
explain themselves very much so yeah I think it's essential
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:24:24
so just for clarity the first proposal is for approval so we have to see if
anybody would like to approve first and if there's any proposal or seconder if
there isn't then we'll go to the next motion so I'm assuming everybody's not
for that first thing so is that okay so then just to be certain given the very
most recent discussions on the proposal you still happy to propose that and
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:24:56
council Townsend you're still happy to second it
the agenda.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:25:18
Okay. So that motion is
carried. And the next agenda
item is the date of the next
meeting which is Wednesday,

5 Date and Time of Next Meeting

22nd of April at 6 .30. And
And then finally, site visit members,
please can have a show of hands

6 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

if you can make site visits on Tuesday the 21st.
21st, anyone?
One, two.
Councillor West and Councillor Townsend.
Okay, thank you.
We'll close the meeting, thank you.
Mr Leslie Ashton
Democratic Services Officer
Buckinghamshire Council
View profile Mr Leslie Ashton