East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 31 March 2026, 6:30pm

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 31st March 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Apologies for absence

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Mrs Elly Cook

2 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr David Moore
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr David Moore

2 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

4 PL/25/3172/FA - The Academy - The South Buckinghamshire, Stoke Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4NL

Share this agenda point

Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Supporter
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr David Moore
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Alan Sherwell
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Rebecca Jarratt
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ms. Rachel Steele
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jonathan Waters

5 PL/25/5833/FA - Glenlea, 13 Peterhill Close, Chalfont St Peter SL9 0HZ

Share this agenda point

Ms. Rachel Webb
Ms. Rachel Timlin
Ms. Rachel Timlin
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Isobel Darby
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alan Sherwell
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jonathan Waters

6 PL/25/5596/FA - Penny Royal, Dukes Wood Drive, Gerrards Cross SL9 7LW

Share this agenda point

Ms. Rachel Timlin
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant
Public Speakers - Objectors
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alan Sherwell
Ms. Rachel Timlin
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Ms. Rachel Timlin
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr David Moore

7 Date of next meeting

Share this agenda point

8 Availability of Members attending Site Visits (if required)

Share this agenda point

Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr David Moore
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Thomas Hogg
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
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 David Moore - 0:00:00

Well, a very good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the East and South Area, Buckinghamshire

Planning Committee. Before we start this agenda, I just want to cover a few housekeeping items

today. For your information, this meeting is being webcasted and by entering the room,

you have consented to be filmed. However, if members of the public do not wish to have

their image captured, then please advise the committee clerk and we will help you sit to

be in a place where you will not be filmed.

And the fire exits are located at the back of the chamber,

down the main stairs now to the front doors.

And please follow me and we will congregate outside

in the space located over the bridge towards the roundabout

in an event of a fire.

And thank you members, thank you members of the public

for coming here today, and especially to the members

who came to the site visit today.

I'm sorry I couldn't join you due to a flat tyre

caused by a pothole, so councillors are not immune

from potholes so that's yes something to observe but but we now move to the first

item on the agenda which is any apologies for absence thank you thank

you chairman we've had apologies from councillor Martin Tett CBE councillor

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:01:11

Jackson and councillor Matthew hind councillor Alan Sherwell is substituting

for councillor hind thank you very much and councillor thank you very much for

2 Declarations of interest

substituting it's much appreciated chairman point of order of course

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:25

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:01:31

Planning Committee Procedure Rule 3 .16 allows a Councillor to submit a motion without notice to the Committee under the Committee Procedure Rules.

It does so by engaging the Committee Procedure Rules.

Under Committee Procedure Rule 2 .26, to propose that

1. Planning Committee Procedure Rule 3 .2 be suspended so as to dis -apply the length of service of the Chairman,

and that

2. The Committee elects a new Chairman with immediate effect for the remainder of the current Council year.

I'd like somebody to second that if they would.

Cllr David Moore - 0:02:06

Thank you very much, Councillor Wilson. Is there a motion for this now live on the floor?

Does anyone have any other proposals they wish to counter that? If not, we'll go to a vote.

Okay, I think that's live to a vote, is it not? So all in favour of Councillor Wilson's motion,

raise their hands all those opposed

can Councillor hog vote now he's here

I think the vote's in, Chang.

Sorry?

I think the vote is in.

Well, we have another member who's just joined us, so we're just checking the constitution.

but we'll see it go from there.

Well, I'm no longer chairman. Thank you very much.

would you like to propose the Chairman now? I think it's for the Clerk to run

the election of a new Chair.

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:03:57

Do we have a proposal for the Chairman? I'd like to propose Councillor Jonathan Waters.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:04:00

please raise your hands.

please raise your hand.

If I may, there was no other

nomination so on that basis the

Okay. Can we just cheque that there wasn't going to be any

other nomination?

I would like to nominate David Moore as has sprung upon us. I

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:05:12

would have thought that there might be a way for me to

respond to it.

Do we have a seconder for that?

the vote.

Are you allowed to vote?

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:05:29

Are you allowed to vote?

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:05:32

Yes, because you are present now.

We will take the vote in the order of the day given. Can I

do all those in favour please of Jonathan Waters?

Thank you.

All those against?

One, two, three, four, five.

Okay.

That's it.

That's a tie.

vote.

I'm assuming it will be the same.

If we could just now, because that's a tie, if we can now

take the votes for David Moore, please.

In his favour.

and the other one.

So we have a motion to approve

So we have a tie. So if in that

case and are there any other

nominations? No. So I would

I would suggest that if members are agreeable that we have a

chair for this meeting.

This meeting can go ahead.

Sorry, what is the proposal?

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:07:05

No one has agreed as to who will be the chairman for the

committee.

We need to get this meeting to go ahead.

We need to elect a chairman for this meeting.

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:07:13

If we can agree for this meeting so that this meeting can go

ahead, would members be agreeable to that?

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:07:27

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:07:39

I'd like to nominate the current vice -chair, Councillor Jonathan Waters, to chair this

Are there any other nominations for Chairman for this meeting?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:07:59

David Moore, might I suggest that we're probably going to go around in circles here.

Can we defer to the next meeting? I think it would be far better if people are so minded to change the membership.

I would also like to second that because we have business to get through.

There's lots of people who have attended here today who don't want to hear petty politics.

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:20

They want to have a functioning planning committee and I am ready to chair this meeting. I wasn't even yeah

This is we want to get through with the procedure

And I think that would be appropriate

Yes agreed

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr David Moore - 0:09:01

for the remainder of this meeting, Councillor Jonathan Waters will chair this meeting because

I think it's important we get business through and I think that's what matters and putting

residents first. So, Councillor Waters, I invite you to chair the rest of this meeting

and then we will elect Chairman at the next meeting. Thank you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:09:39

Thank you.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen and sorry for the delay.

It took quite a lot of time to go through how that would work, but as the Vice Chairman

for the year, I am stepping up to chair the meeting as the Vice Chair, and as stated,

there will be an election at the next meeting for Chairman of the Committee.

I'd like to – just checking exactly where we got to on the agenda.

I think we've actually done – have we done the declarations of interest?

No.

Can I ask if there are any declarations of interest?

Okay, Councillor Moore.

Thank you, Chairman.

I have one just to declare on the South Bucks Country Park application.

I am the ward Councillor but coming here with an open mind.

Thank you.

Councillor Harris.

I was the cabinet member on South Bucks Country Park where most of these decisions were changed.

So I just wonder how you feel about me on this.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:11:19

As long as you've got an open mind, we're okay with that.

Always open minded.

Your knowledge on site was useful actually as we were wandering around.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:11:31

Councillor Hogg.

I too am the the counsellor for Stoke Poggis and the Farnhams but I also like

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:11:42

David like Councillor Moore keep an open mind. Thank you. Agenda item 3 may have

approval and can I sign off the minutes for the previous meeting of the East and

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:11:56

South Buckinghamshire area planning committee held on the 3rd of March 2026.

Great, thank you very much. We will now move on to item four and that's

application PL stroke 25, stroke 31, 72, stroke FA and that's the Academy, the South

Buckinghamshire, Stoke Road, Stoke Poggis and can I now hand over to

Good evening. This application proposes a country park to incorporate general

4 PL/25/3172/FA - The Academy - The South Buckinghamshire, Stoke Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4NL

footpaths and associated landscaping including land re profiling with

importation of soil. It includes a new children's play area and change of use

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:12:49

of the existing clubhouse building to be used as a cafe with an associated

outdoor toilet block and an area for informal overflow car parking. The

application is part retrospective due to the importation of soil already have

having commenced under a previous permission. The recommendation is that

the committee resolved that the application be deferred and delegated to

the director of planning and environment to approve subject to the submission of

a habitat management and monitoring plan that is acceptable to planning and

ecology officers and subject to the conditions set out in this report or to

refuse if a satisfactory habitat management and monitoring plan is not

agreed within a period of six months. This six month period is to provide a

backstop to prevent it having to come back to committee to be determined again.

The site is located to the west of Stoke Road in Stoke Pogers. The site is

marked here by the red star and the entrance by the red arrow. There is a

Sports Centre to the southwest corner, dwellings on Stoke Poggis Lane and

Furtree Avenue and Stoke Park beyond that to the northwest and Stoke Place to

the east with Stoke Place farm cottages to the southeast and Slough crematorium

to the south.

This is the extent of the planning application.

And this is an aerial view of the southern corner of the site where the existing clubhouse

building and parking area are and the entrance is marked by the red arrow.

and if I just use the pointer I can show through the middle of the site is Muddy

Lane which is a bridleway that links Stoke Road through towards the west.

This is the site layout plan and it shows the contours of the land formation.

The application is for the operational development required to facilitate the

use of the site as the country park with the use of as a country park not forming

a change of use because the previous use was a golf course which was is under the

same use class in the use class order. The application includes a surface

circular walk around the outside of the site with mown paths between these are

the lilac lines and then the brown line through the middle is a existing foot

path and the Bridleway muddy lane runs across the bottom of the site again here.

There would be a play area located to the north of the Welkom area and the Welkom area

comprises the car park, cafe and associated facilities.

The drawing shows existing tree belts to the north and eastern boundaries and additional

woodland planting to the south western boundary.

an existing pond and swale to the east and the pond will be restored for

wildlife benefits. This is the layout of the previously approved site plan and

that included a number of cycle tracks and trails. It included more structural

and formal layout of the landform and planting and the new application was

required to be submitted for the whole scheme because of changes that exceed

what could be undertaken under a section 73 variation of conditions application.

It would have required a change of description of development because the

description included the demolition of the existing clubhouse which is now to

be retained and due to the particular principles established under the

hillside judgement which deals with overlapping planning permissions it

would not have been possible to deal with the retention of the clubhouse and

its conversion to a cafe as a drop -in application as it would have resulted in

conflicting permissions. The site layout has been updated to reflect the requests

of the lead local flood authority to include a ditch along this southwestern

boundary linking to the existing pre -development out for four point and

it provides a the revised application provides a more naturalistic landform

with regenerative regenerated planting and it has been agreed that there will

be some pockets of woodland and individual tree planting across the site

but it will remain largely open.

So the application includes upgrades to the proposed,

to the existing access, which includes additional pavement

and a drop curb crossing point across Stoke Road.

There are alterations to the existing car park,

including extension to provide disabled parking to the west of the building.

Includes a storage delivery compound and WC block and seating areas.

The cafe, so the existing building will be converted into a cafe with a level

access to the north, a detached WC block to the northeast and a delivery enclosure to the southeast.

These are the building elevations showing that WC block here, the storage compound

to the rear of the building.

And there would also be a bin storage area just kind of at the edge of the car park.

These are the previously approved building plans for the building that was going to replace

the clubhouse and that was a much larger building but it had a flat roof and modular construction.

So here's just some photos of the site, so this is looking into the site from the site entrance.

This shows the building that would be converted into the cafe.

This photograph shows where the picnic bench area would be between the cafe and the play area.

This shows the location of the play area.

This shows where the car park extension would go to the west of the cafe building.

This is just a photograph looking back towards the site from the Sports Centre car park.

this is the main place where you can see the landform from outside of the site.

And then just some photographs taken from on top of the the landform,

looking back towards the Sports Centre and Stoke Poders Lane in this direction.

Looking back towards the welcome area, so I've just denoted where the car park and the cafe

building are from the top of the mound. And then this is looking towards the

north back towards Fir Tree Avenue.

So there are no updates to the report before members other than to confirm

and an extension of time has been agreed

and it will need to be reviewed

as the habitat management monitoring plan

has not yet been received.

But yeah, the application is recommended to be deferred

in accordance with the recommendation in the report.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

From the photographs, it was less wet when we went,

So it was a much drier walk across all those fields.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:22:11

We do have a speaker, which is the agent,

and that's Daniel Hughes, if you could come forward.

You will have three minutes to speak.

The lights will go on once you start speaking.

And then afterwards, if any of the committee

have any questions, just stay in your place

if you want to start one when you're ready.

Thank you. Chair members of the planning committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:22:40

the agent for this application and want to take this opportunity to highlight some points

and support the proposal to be available as well to answer any questions on behalf of

our client who are the contractors Glendale for this as well. Firstly, the applicant has

always sought to respond positively to all requests from the officers and consultees

throughout both the pre -application and planning application process. This has resulted in

scheme is detailed within the officer's report that leads to numerous benefits.

No objections from statutory consultees and can be found acceptable in planning

terms. In this respect I'm pleased to be committee today with recommendation for

approval. As per the officer's report it's clear the proposed development is

called with the development plan policies and whilst there is some small

conflict of policy CP8 in terms of archaeology that impact is limited and

outweighed by the public benefits of bringing the park back into use or the

parking to public use along with the biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements that

the scheme would deliver. Further to this both the use associated engineering works

and the reuse of existing clubhouse fully comply with Greenbelt policy as set out by

the MPPF. In terms of the construction of the development, given the soil impolitation

has already largely taken place under the extant permission, the immunity and construction

traffic impact can be managed acceptably and secured in the same way to the previous permission

via construction environmental management plan.

Further to this, as evidenced in the supporting information

to the application, the proposals like to resort

in less activities at the site and related movements

when compared to the extant permission.

And in a similar vein to the extant permission,

the proposed conditions will ensure

the construction impact is acceptable

and the final scheme delivers the benefits

of the officer's report,

or set out the officer's report.

In this respect, I'm pleased to note

the recommendation for approval

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:24:33

and we were therefore urging to accept the recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Members,

do you have any questions? Councillor Wilson, then Councillor Ashman. Yes, thank you, Chairman,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:40

and thank you to the agent. Could you just comment, you mentioned CPA and the archaeology work,

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:24:46

could you explain why the archeological work required under the written statement of

investigation was not carried out and therefore, in a sense, there's a little bit of a waiver

on CP8.

Yeah, I've been involved in this on and off for about six, seven years through various

guises through different people, the contractors, and I think there's probably been, um, dipping

in and out of it, um, from my side, perhaps a misunderstanding in terms of what was needed

to be done. I don't think anything's been done deliberately to avoid that. I think it's

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:25:23

just I believe the, well, I think we didn't submit

the written scheme of investigation to the council.

The client did at the time, and I think misunderstood

what was needed to be done.

So that's my understanding in terms of how things

have been missed in that side of things,

that effectively they submitted what was needed

for the condition but didn't understand,

or for whatever reason, the personnel at the time

didn't realise extra work needed to be done

to resolve that condition, let's say.

Not so bad as bigger explanation as I can give, unfortunately.

I'm thinking, as we said today when we looked at it,

well, at least if there's anything under there,

it's still under there.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:26:09

Yes, under quite a lot of tonnage, I think,

which is sitting there.

Councillor Ashman.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:26:13

My question was broadly the same,

so in the interest of time, I'll pass, thank you.

I don't see any other questions. Oh sorry, I do. OK, Councillor Hogg.

I note from the photos that the site seems to be in quite a bad condition. Having been

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:26:35

to the site myself, I can also see that it's quite a bad condition. I'm wondering about

the time scales, once you get planning permission, if you were to get planning permission today,

how long it would take to open to the public and whether it would only be

open to the public once the all works are being completed or if you can start

it earlier and in conjunction to that whether this is the simplest planning

application you could put in place to ensure that it can open as quickly as

possible. I guess a few different questions in terms of time scales that's

something I'll take back to Glendale. I don't know the full ins and outs. I do know there's

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:27:19

some urgency to get going and get this sorted. Obviously the original permission is quite

a long time ago. Works have been started on it, hence the importation of material. As

I understand they're ready to go and get going on it, but time scale wise I don't know. And

in terms of phasing within that, in terms of what would be open as and when, I think

that obviously depends on those time scales just referred to and how you can obviously

open up parts of the site safely. But clearly, with getting a permission hopefully today,

that really gets the ball going and some momentum going and getting things resolved on that.

The second part of the question was to do with the simplest application. So was that

referred to the changes to where things are at now versus what was originally approved?

Well, yes, I note in here that you're no longer planning to make the changes to the cafe.

In terms of rebuilding it.

Yes, exactly. And considering how complex these sorts of builds can be, I'm wondering

how you've reached the decisions that you've reached to get to this application.

in the context of the fact that this has been planned since before there was even a unitary

council.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:28:43

You understood. Unfortunately, I think those conversations and those considerations go

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:28:49

far beyond my involvement and obviously it's been a strategic one. I can only imagine the

changes that we can see right now have been brought in to, as you put it, simplify things

to deliver a scheme rather than it not to be delivered. My understanding from conversations

about the changes that were presented to us and we provide advice on and spoken to the

council about hence why there's been various submissions in between and we've had to do

a fresh application because of the hillside decision referred to that would slow things

down slightly. There's been changes particularly for the cycle requirements and perhaps I don't

count, hold my word on, but I assume funding and that type of thing that effectively meant

that what is in front of you now is probably going to be, and I can only imagine if you're

doing a reuse of a building, that's going to be quicker and easier to deliver and more

likely to be delivered in theory. It's not a conversion like an agricultural barn, is

it? Then not down rebuilds. In theory, it should be something that the works be a little

bit simpler. But again, contractor question, it's something that I can take away and ask

those questions. And obviously to have a relationship with the council and those conversations must

be taking place as well, so it's just making sure they're shared with the right people.

Councillor Harris wants to go. I've got one question myself. Looking at it, obviously there's quite a lot of

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:30:03

heavy concrete that's been brought onto the site that's going to be broken down.

Have all the materials come onto site that needs to come onto site, or what is

due to come onto site? Because I know that impacts people in the local area.

Yeah, that was, I mean ultimately today I was hoping that the intention was hopefully

to have someone from Glendale here to do this part because they're far more involved in

this part of the scheme. Unfortunately the gentleman that would have been here has caught

up on something else in Scotland so it was almost, I'm very unfortunate timings. My understanding

from the work that we've done on this from a planning perspective is a significant amount

of the work, i .e. the importation as referred to in the report and I've mentioned, that

is the biggest trips associated with the construction side of things, which you've obviously been

on site, you've seen it and the mound there as we've referred to, you can see probably

that would be the biggest amount of work. There will be obviously more trips associated

with it and there will be some construction and more material required, but I imagine

based on the assessments being done, that is far less than what was sort of back seven

eight years ago when the first approval came in if that makes sense.

Okay thank you. Sorry, Councillor Harris. Thank you very much.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:31:29

It was just one question and that is despite the use of

the machine to cleanse and separate all the various soil that's come onto

the site there's still quite a lot of debris in terms of reinforcing coming

out of concrete reinforcing bars which are lit to the site will there be a

hand -picked way of going around to get rid of that because bearing in mind

there's gonna be somewhere that once the grass grows they're not going to show

through very easily and the sort of hazard that it would hurt a child quite significantly.

So the question to do with landscape in an essence is it going to be

landscape to yeah it will need to be I mean almost the landscaping is caught up

with the net gain to biodiversity to a degree as well because you've got your

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:32:15

habitat so you're wanting to make sure that the spec is there so in terms of

making sure number one it's safe and number two it's going to deliver on the

landscape requirements both of the habitat I imagine that will be the case

because otherwise it's not going to and I can't think what's in the conditions

right now but again you'll be familiar with it normally have a landscape

condition that if something fails after a period of time within those five years

you need to replant. So the conditions for the planting will need to be of a good standard

to begin with. So I would imagine that would be the case. But obviously, the fine, again,

outside of planning, I imagine from a health and safety perspective, that's quite an important

element of it. But obviously, that goes beyond my remit and probably today's as well. But

yeah, that would be my guess.

Thank you Mr Hughes. I think that's all the questions from members that I've got at the moment.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:33:05

We'll now move on to any technical questions that members would have of the officers.

Councillor Moore.

Thank you Chairman. I understand officers, I understand that we are looking at this application here today,

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:33:20

one because it's a Council's application as per the Constitution.

Cllr David Moore - 0:33:23

but is this also because of the hillside judgement of section 73 because of the

the outhouse they're keeping now does that mean this has come back to the

committee today because a number of residents have said oh why is it coming

back to committee just on a perception point thank you and it is simply because

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:33:48

this is a fresh planning application so it's under the Constitution it's a fresh

consideration for the committee and because it's a council application it

needs to come before the committee it can't be delegated thank you

Councillor Sherwell then Councillor Wilson then Councillor Hogg. Thank you Jim

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:34:08

three questions which I think I know the answer to but I want to make sure that

I'm right. There's talk in here about effectively refurbishing upgrading

the Bridal Path, which I'm fine with.

Are there any other rights of way across this site,

apart from the Bridal Path, is the first question.

Second question is, how long ago was it

that it was actively a golf club, or golf course, rather?

And the third question is,

when, as a visitor from the urban north,

Does the designation Country Park have a specific planning meaning or is

simply a nice way to describe the area? The last question we did ask actually

on the site visit but I think it'll be useful for everybody to understand that

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:10

more. Okay so taking the first question regarding the rights -of -way so there are

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:35:16

There are currently two rights of way on the site.

There is Muddy Lane, which is a bridleway, which

crosses across the northern part of the Wellcome area.

And then there is this footpath, which

crosses from south to north across the site.

It comes up here, and then it travels.

This is the northern part.

Yep, just good if it's on the screen then it's easy for you to talk to it.

So yeah, this is Muddy Lane that goes to the northern side of the welcome area and then

the footpath travels from the south to the north across the site and then this is the

northern part of the site that joins on there.

So it just comes up here and joins up to Fertory Avenue on that northern corner.

Yes and that will be surfaced as well so it will be more accessible. Then in

terms of how long ago it was a golf course, so it was closed to golf I

understand around ten years ago and so it's not been used for golf for around

ten years and it was 2019 when work commenced in terms of bringing starting

to bring the soil on to the site for this proposal and then in terms of

designation as a country park that doesn't really have a specific planning

reason or use as I've said previously it's in the same use class as a golf

course in terms of being a community facility for outdoor recreation

Thank You council Wilson yeah I was gonna say if you could leave that map up

that would be helpful Claire thank you my question was in relation to muddy the

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:37:27

part of the Muddy Lane Bridleway that crosses the site.

And it was more from a safety point of view.

And I'm just thinking, if you've got people coming off site,

on site, into it, you've got vehicles coming in

off the main road.

And because it's a bridleway, then it's being surfaced

for cycles and potentially horses.

I don't know the extent to which horses do use use that

and therefore is there any plan for any segregation of

Bicycles potentially horses walkers from the vehicles entering the site from the main road

To ensure that there's appropriate safety and I'm also mindful that you've got the playground on the other side of that as well

So if you've got people whizzing on bikes coming up towards the site itself from off -site,

how will safety be managed because you've got potentially people coming from opposite directions?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:38:48

So there aren't any proposed methods for segregation proposed as part of the

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:38:51

application. This part of the application isn't different to the previous

permission in terms of the the right away will be resurfaced but there's no

intention to provide any segregation to it I thought you might say that and the

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:39:23

previous application was for specific cycle use with lots of cycle tracks and

therefore you'd have people who want to come cycling be a very mindful of

cyclists. Here you're going to have people walking dogs, dogs potentially off the lead

coming from the car park. So I think the change of, I know it's not a planning change of use,

but the different users will be very different to the users when that was first approved. So

I just think there may be a little bit of a safety issue that hasn't been fully considered

because it's just been copied across in terms of the resurfacing.

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:05

That type of relationship is quite a common issue for Bridalways, so it would just be

a similar issue.

It wouldn't normally be something we would control as part of a planning application.

I wonder whether the rights of strategic access officers, whatever they call themselves, might

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:40:22

have rerouted it round the perimeter of the site round the edge of the car park

for example and away from the access point so it just struck me when the map

went up that it's exactly the same access point and I think it's a

consideration that hadn't struck me when I was on site earlier on but whether or

not it would benefit from a rerouting away from the car park so I can confirm

that the strategic access officer was consulted on the application and they

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:40:54

can considered that the route was appropriate they asked for it to be

surfaced but they didn't raise any concerns regarding safety in respect of

the route proposed.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:41:16

Councillor Hogg then Councillor Roberts. If we were to send this to approval

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:41:21

could we put a condition on it this might be just table stakes anyway but a

condition on it that means that the council would need to put the road as in

Stoke Road back to the same condition which they found it in when when the

application was approved if it gets approved it's simply because that road

was an absolutely a terrible state took quite a long time for some of us to make

sure it got resurfaced now being resurfaced and if there are to be

further lorries to go down there we need to have reassurances that it will go

back to the state that road that it was in when they got the application

approved that might be something that is within the construction traffic

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:42:22

management plan I I can't recall whether it is in there I could look it up and

cheque whether it's in there would you mind see that in here be good to find

that out because if it's not then be good to have that as a condition

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:42:34

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:42:42

and the

One thing we could talk about is

try to create an informative to

highlight it as a concern that it

needs to be put back even if we

can't put a condition in.

Obviously if you're looking at

that.

and the

Sorry. Everybody can hear what's

being said. As I thought from what I think most of the

construction traffic has already happened. I think the concern

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:43:20

will be I think is more of a sort of a catchall that we don't

let it go if there's a little bit more to happen and some

damage does take place then actually there is a

informative maybe the way to actually try to follow up on it and particularly

if we can find it is a responsibility already that is being agreed so that

would be good so that wouldn't be in this plan that would be in a separate

document is that what you're saying I think we would put an informative on the

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:43:55

on what we would agree today so in terms of conditions informatives add to the

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:44:01

committee has a concern and draws the applicant to that this particular

concern should be followed through. But if we've got some evidence that it's

already captured somewhere else then it will be saying they should be

making, ensuring that that condition is followed up at the end of the development.

And if it's not a condition, if it's not already in the plan and we put it as an

informative, then presumably it doesn't really have the same teeth to it that an actual condition would have.

it doesn't matter whether we've been able to do a condition or not.

So I can see Ben is working very hard here.

So we'll come back on that point, I think, while they're working hard to get us an answer.

I've got Councillor Roberts.

Yeah, it's just quite a simple one, really.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:44:52

I mean, I think the situation is here that we've got, there's an approved plan.

and this proposal is for a less intensive development.

So that's just really the confirmation

that I was looking for,

that confirmation that this,

the position that we're looking at

is that this is a less intensive development

than the plan that has already been approved

in broad terms.

So the question is is is the just looking for a new application is that less intensive than previously?

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:45:33

The conclusion is that this is a less intensive

application than the

The one that's already been approved and there's certainly less works being proposed because they're keeping the existing buildings on the site and converting

them rather than

Replacing them with buildings. Well one follow -up on that was specifically around

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:45:57

traffic I wanted to ask about as the no material change in the expected traffic

volumes from the previous application this one that would be in the highway

comments so just one moment

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:46:13

yes highways confirmed that there wouldn't be an increase in traffic

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:46:30

compared to the approved scheme in during usage and just to confirm I have

found the part of the construction management plan that refers to highways

conditions and so paragraph 5 .6 says a condition survey will be undertaken of

appropriate sections to be accrued agreed with Buckinghamshire Council of the

construction route documenting the existing state of the Carriageway in

verges and a further condition survey will be undertaken after construction

and any resulting damage to the Carriageway repaired by the contractor as

part of a section 59 of the Highways Act 1980. So the Highways Authority have

previously approved that construction traffic management plan that has been

submitted to us to accompany this application and the Highways Authority

have confirmed that this construction traffic management plan can be approved

as a compliance condition okay that's good news and that's already there so

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:47:41

covers that particular point council Ashman thank you just to clarify the

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:47:48

habitat management and monitoring plan needs to be the recommendation is that

it needs to be agreed within six months but looking at on page 29 condition 6 it

says that within 28 days of the date of this permission,

the HMMP shall be implemented in full.

So would that not mean that we would have to get it

submitted, approved, and implemented within 28 days,

and that six months is therefore not relevant?

So the recommendation is that the application is deferred

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:48:20

and delegated once the habitat management monitoring plan

has been agreed with officers and the ecology team. So if you go with the

officer recommendation the application wouldn't be approved today it would be

approved once the habitat management and monitoring plan is agreed. The six month

backstop is in case it takes a long time to resolve that we're not anticipating

that it will but then once the application is approved it then needs to

be put in place within 28 days because it is something that normally we are

dealing with completely proposed applications when those works have taken

place and this would be something that would need to be put in place from the

start. Obviously we because of the previous permission and mandatory BNG

coming in since then we're at a position whereby the application is technically

not able to accord with those pre -commencement conditions that would be put on under statutory

applications.

So we need them to comply with it soon after the permission is granted.

Okay.

I think that's all the questions.

We're now open to the item for debate.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:49:41

I don't know who would like to start.

I've got Councillor Moore then Councillor Wilson.

Cllr David Moore - 0:49:56

Thank you Chairman. I'm very satisfied by this application. I think it's a very exciting

application. I think a lot of the mitigations are in place. I have nothing more to say beyond

I'm happy to propose that we approve this application.

Council Wilson.

I'm happy to second that.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:50:18

I think we've seen some great work there today so I think it would be great for residents

if this facility is delivered.

Fine.

I don't, Councillor Harris.

Just for information, we were advised by officers today to anticipate opening in November,

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:50:30

what thereabouts.

Fingers crossed.

Thank you.

I don't see any other contributions.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:50:47

If I just, I don't know if the officers want to come in,

but I'd like to just go to the vote

to sum up the recommendation.

Ms. Rachel Steele - 0:51:00

Okay.

Yes, we've had Councillor Moore is proposing and Councillor Wilson is seconding and that

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:51:14

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:51:17

is to support the recommendation of the officer in full.

Can I have those in show of hands of those in favour of that motion?

That's everyone and as chair I'll abstain on the item, but just as chair that would have supported otherwise

Thank you very much

will now move to

5 PL/25/5833/FA - Glenlea, 13 Peterhill Close, Chalfont St Peter SL9 0HZ

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:51:47

Item, gender item five, and that's PL stroke 25, stroke 5833, stroke FA, Glenn Lee, 13,

Peter Hill Close, Chell Fonts -n -Peter, SL9, OHZ.

We do have speakers on this.

We have four speakers, but I'll come to that later.

I will hand over to the officer, Rachel Timlin, to go through the application.

Thank you.

Ms. Rachel Webb - 0:52:30

So, firstly, since the publication of the case officer's report, another comment has

been received in relation to this application.

However, it raises issues that are not pertinent to the consideration of this application and

does not alter the recommendation to grant conditional permission. This

application seeks planning permission for a loft extension, hip to gable roof

Ms. Rachel Timlin - 0:52:51

conversion, rear dormer and replacement of existing single -storey rear extension

Ms. Rachel Timlin - 0:52:58

and front porch. So the application site is located on the western side of Peter

Hill Close, a cul -de -sac in Chalfont St Peter. Peter Hill Close is defined as an

consistent suburban townscape character area as defined in the Chiltern South

box townscape character study. This document highlights that in these areas

building heights vary between one and two storeys which are seen on Peter Hill

Close with a mixture of bungalows and two -storey dwellings. However it is noted

that this part of the close features a relatively consistent row of bungalows.

These are a couple of photos taken from the front of the property.

And this is an image showing the two immediate neighbours. So as you can see both neighbours feature gable end designs and

Therefore the applicants proposed gable end would be in keeping with the established character of the neighbouring dwellings

It's obviously a photo of the rear

So as mentioned the proposal seeks to add a dormer to the rear elevation a

a hipped gable roof conversion with slight increase in height,

a single -storey rear extension in place of the existing conservatory,

and alterations to the front porch.

The remodelled dwelling is not considered to be out of keeping in the area,

as it will retain a similar height and appearance to other gable roofed bungalows,

and will still read as a bungalow from the front,

not appearing as a two -storey dwelling.

The dormer is positioned on the rear roof slope,

the roof. The primary impact on

neighbour immunity arises from

the gable end form given that

the dormer is set back from the

gable end and therefore less

impactful. This element, the

hip to gable conversion could be

constructed under development

rights and would therefore not

in and of itself require planning

permission. Local SPD guidance

neighbourhood supports the

principle that flat roof rear

dormers can be appropriate where

they are located in rear roof

slopes that are not readily

visible in the surrounding area.

The neighbour's window on number

12 is located about here with

the gable further back and the dormer set further back again so it was not considered

to be overly harmful to their amenities.

With regard to the other neighbour at number 14, this neighbouring bedroom window is located

to the south of the application property and given the sun's path, this orientation ensures

that the development would not result in a material loss or overshadowing with any impact

limited to minor periods outside of peak daylight hours, i .e.

early morning or late evening.

As mentioned, the majority of the impact to neighbours would

result from the hip to gable conversion, given this is the main

park closest to the boundary. However, this is not considered to

lead to a level of harm to neighbour amenity that would justify

refusal of planning permission and, as mentioned, could be

constructed under permitted development in any event.

the property. There is one first floor window which is proposed to serve this landing which

is recommended to be conditioned to be securely glazed in order to protect the privacy of

that neighbour. There is sufficient space on site for the required level of parking

i .e. three spaces in line with Buckinghamshire parking guidance document so no objections

raised in this regard. So taking that all into account it's not considered that the

proposal would significantly impair neighbour amenities, be to the detriment of the character

the area or raise any issues with regard to parking or highway safety and

therefore recommended for approval.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:56:57

Thank you. We'll now move on to speakers. As I said we have four speakers. We have

Councillor Isabel Darby who's the ward Councillor who's a Buckinghamshire

Councillor, Professor Councillor Diane Miners, Chalfont St. Peter parish

Councillor who speak on behalf of the parish, Mr Stephen Little an objector

and the agent Mr Mahinda Kalsy from Line Design Limited. Each of you will have

three minutes to speak and we will the speaking will take place in that order. I

don't know if those who want to who are going to speak would like to come up to

the microphone so you're ready for for your sessions. I know Councillor Derby is

is already in place.

Cllr Isobel Darby - 0:57:52

Councillor Darby's done this before, so she knows the three minutes and the lights will go on when we start.

But for the people who may not be aware, I'll go through that a little bit more later.

So, Councillor Darby.

Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you members of the committee for listening to me this evening.

Peter Hill close is a small cul -de -sac its predominant feature is bungalows

there are literally at the end of the cul -de -sac two blocks of masonettes so it

is predominantly bungalows the design and access statement provided by the

applicants gives a false impression in stating the property is a house that

many of the properties have been similarly extended and really you know

when you when you look at this this is absolutely huge now I understand about

permitted development. Policy H 13 outlines a plan permission for extensions

will be granted provided that there will be no significant detriment to the

amenities of neighbours and that's really what I'm concerned about. You know the

character and appearance of the street scene would not be as adversely affected.

That's as maybe the regard the amenities of the neighbours I think will be

severely affected and it's fair enough saying that the dormers are in from the

It is still going to have a tremendous impact on number 12 and number 14

Which is why I'm here this evening

The National Design Guide states it's important for extensions to integrate well with the right wider surroundings

And this is exactly what it does not the application will affect the character and appearance of

Will affect the character appearance of the street scene from the side and will not integrate well with its surroundings

It's an extremely unneighborly application and it will be overbearing and lead to

Overlooking and loss of light and I see what the officer said in terms of the window

But that light coming out of that window will still be shining and visible by the neighbours

And I just feel that that kind of thing, you know, you can't really

Sort of describe what that's going to feel like for somebody where it was just black and all of a sudden it's a landing light

It's going to be shining

And in terms of the parking that's another

issue because the parking may have it may have room for three vehicles on site

but we all know that that doesn't always mean that three vehicles will park on

site and that road is narrow and it does have congestion so I'm therefore

requesting you don't accept the officers recommendation and you refuse this

application Thank You chairman thanks counsellor Thank You councillor Darby does

anyone have any questions of the counsellor

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:00:21

No, so thank you.

The next speaker is Professor Councillor Diane Miners, and that's speaker on behalf of Chalfont's

Peter Parish Council.

You have three minutes and the time will start once you start speaking.

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:00:40

Thank you.

So Chalfont's Peter Parish Council objects to this application.

First reason it doesn't fit the street scene.

All the bungalows as Isabel Darby has said in PTO class have low hipped roofs the proposal replaces number

13 hipped roof with a wide gable ends and a full width flat roofed dormer

This makes the roof much wider and more dominant than the neighbouring bungalows. It breaks the consistent roof shape that defines the whole row

Secondly, it will look much bigger than the officer suggests. The issue isn't height

it's the change in roof shape with the extra width and the flat dormer. These

changes make the house look far bulkier than the officers officer's report

implies. It simply simply won't look like a bungalow anymore despite what the

report claims. Three, it will harm neighbours light and outlook. The house sits

only just one metre from its neighbours. Replacing a sloping hip roof with a tall

vertical gable wall makes the side elevation feel much more overbearing.

This will reduce light and outlook, especially for No. 14, whose windows face the boundary.

In such a tight space, this impact is significant, not slight.

It will create serious loss of privacy.

The proposal adds new first floor windows where none exist today.

These windows give a direct elevated view straight into the guard of number 14

This is not a minor or oblique. It means number 14's garden will no longer be private or usable

The same issue affects number 12 though to a lesser extent. This is a clear significant loss of privacy

5 many people share these concerns 16 residents the majority of the road

Objected, raising the same issues, loss of privacy, overbearing impact, loss of light,

overdevelopment and harm to the street scene.

Six, the officer's report doesn't reflect the strength of local concern.

The report focuses on technical matters and discussions with the applicant,

but it downplays the real -world impact on neighbours and the character of the street.

For these reasons, harm to the street, loss of privacy, overbearing impact and the precedent it sets,

We ask the committee to refuse this application

Thank you, do we have any questions Councillor hog

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:03:09

Would you mind providing a little bit more

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:03:16

Context on the parking situation councillor Darby brought it up and I just want to hear about that a little bit

so if you go back to the

Pictures that were shown earlier

with the cars

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:03:28

You see, that's the problem. This is before any development, that is the cars parked on the street already.

So the idea that three cars will sit on that drive is not true.

And how narrow or wide is the street?

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:03:51

Once that car is parked there, it's a tight pass down to the end where the flats are.

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:03:54

So there's not a great turning circle at the end.

And so we're dependent on travelling quite close

to that car and the curb on the other side.

Is it the case that cars often park half

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:04:08

on the curb of the pavement?

Are you saying that is it the case that all buggies

and walkers are blocked from using the pavement?

Yes, that's sort of the question I have.

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:04:17

Well, okay.

So either we go for blocking the pavement

and making it unusable for those that need it,

or we block the road by these excess cars which which would you like to think?

No no I'm asking what the current situation is are they are they parking on the pavement

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:04:34

now or are they? Most people park in their drive yeah except for when the drives aren't big enough

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:04:40

of course and at the minute people park in the road what I've seen but I expect there are exceptions

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:04:54

Thank you, Councillor Hogg. Has anybody else had any questions? No. Thank you. Now call

on Stephen Little, and speaking as an objector. Again, you will have three minutes, and that

starts once you start speaking, and the light will come on so you'll get some indications

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:05:11

you go through and there may be some questions at the end. Thank you. Good

evening this proposal seeks a two -storey near full -width end -to -end dormer with

an increased ridge height, a scale of development that is not characteristic

of this or neighbouring roads. The design and access statement attempts to imply

otherwise but the reality is clear. This introduces a new and incompatible

roof form. The dormer would directly overlook the gardens and rooms of number

12 and number 14. Three large windows facing neighbouring gardens at first floor

level would create a clear and significant loss of privacy. There is

strong precedent in this close for protecting privacy as seen in previous

neighbouring planning applications. A window approximately 16 metres from

number 14 was required to be obscure glazed. A garage conversion approximately 17 metres

from number 12 was not permitted any overlooking windows and was only approved with a pitched

roof. Yet this proposal sits around 1 metre from both boundaries with no meaningful privacy

mitigation. The difference in approach is difficult to justify.

Replacing a pitched roof with a vertical gable lens, rising to around 5 .5 metres, would reduce daylight to number 12 and number 14.

These rooms are used daily by family members who work from home, and the loss of light would have a direct impact on how these spaces are used.

The current open aspect would be replaced by a two -storey structure, essentially running the full width of the plot, positioned just one metre from neighbouring boundaries.

This would create an overbearing sense of enclosure, particularly to patio areas, reducing light and enjoyment of neighbouring gardens. These are clear and tangible planning impacts.

When considered alongside established decisions within the close and the

guidance within the Buckinghamshire residential design guide and the MPPF,

the proposal conflicts with the expected approach to scale, character and

protection of neighbouring amenity. If permitted it will be visible from

multiple viewpoints, a two -storey flat roofed addition set amongst single -storey

pitch roof bungalows. This would introduce a form of development not

typical in the immediate area. 16 letters of objection have been submitted

reflecting the level of concern locally. Parking and road space are already under

pressure and increasing the size of the property is likely to add to this. For

these reasons and to protect the character of the close and the amenity

of neighbouring properties, I strongly urge that this application is refused.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions from committee members?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:08:19

Thank you very much.

Now for the agent, Mr Mahinda Kalsi.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 1:08:32

Okay, Mr Kelsey.

Sorry, that was unbelievable.

When you're – just settle down.

When you're ready to speak, the time will go once you start speaking.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for letting me speak for this application.

I would first like to take this opportunity to thank Rachel for her excellent job in producing the final report,

which she has very correctly and rightly addressed all the matters that the residents have raised and correctly answered all of them.

And, and, and, sorry. So, all, all the questions that she's raised have been answered in, in,

in her report. And I've heard a lot of stuff that people have said about the other issues

by shadowing. If you look at the map, number 14, it sits on the south side of number 13.

So, there's no shadowing effect.

All the sun shines is on number 14.

In fact, it's their Gableland that put shadows on to number 13's windows.

And not only that, they have actually installed a camera that looks into our private areas.

And we have had to shelter that with putting a screen.

and that is very unable. And also a lot of the objections have raised, it's been talking

about fencing. We are not doing any work to any fencing, there is nothing to do any biodiversity

work or none of that, so we're not doing any of that. And the parking issue has just been

raised by all the other objectors. We've got two cars which we park in our driveway. If

two cars can get in the drive, three can get in the drive. There's enough space for four

cars and we can come in and out. In fact, it is the other adjoining neighbours who deliberately

park their cars on the road. Number 12, park their car outside our house, making our access

difficult. Number 14, put the councils in.

Can I just stop you there? If you can make sure that you're not making personal comments about

other individuals, just keep to the planning points, that would be, that's the important part.

I know you might feel emotional about something, but that's all we're looking at here today,

will be clear planning points, whether that's objectors or yourself, that's what we're here

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:11:25

to do is actually go through the guidance and agree things.

You have a few more minutes because I've just interrupted you.

OK, I apologise for that.

So I was just trying to get to the parking issues.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 1:11:35

So there are people who are actually putting the council

on green bins outside the houses to prevent other people parking.

So the parking issue is being created by some of the neighbours.

And I feel that they're actually banging on a drum

and then complaining about noise pollution.

So, you know, it just doesn't make sense at all.

And how can 15 neighbours claim that this property does not need any renovation works?

The only person that can accurately judge that is the experienced chartered surveyor

who surveyed the property last year June when we purchased the property.

And he called the property, classified the property as Grade D. And it's only Grade D

because it's got solar panels. If it wasn't for the solar panels, it would be at the bottom

of B or even E. So this renovation works.

I'm going to stop you there because I think you've had the extra little bit of time after

my introduction.

Can I just say thank you for listening to me? Thank you.

That's fine. Now if we go for questions, I've got Councillor Harris first of all.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:12:43

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:12:48

Thanks very much. Welcome. Looking in the close, at the end of the close there are two -storey

houses. It was no small today that the people who occupy those houses park in the turning

head. So we can see that there's a parking problem there. But do they in fact have garages

at the back of their properties where they should park?

They do.

And so rather than go to the garage they use?

Okay, that's fine. I just want to clarify that. Thanks.

Any other questions? No, thank you very much. We'll now go to technical questions of the

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:13:22

officer. Thank you.

Do we have any technical questions? Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:13:36

Yeah, a key point that seems to come up is about the Gable ends and I'm not sure exactly

through the information there.

So I just wanted to clarify.

My understanding from the visit today

was that both at number 12 and number 14,

there are Gable ends facing number 13 on both sides.

So I just wanted to confirm that that is the case.

So that this development is effectively,

would effectively be creating Gable ends facing Gable ends.

That's correct.

The property would essentially look similar

to both neighbouring properties.

We still remain, when viewed from the front,

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:14:09

as a gable -ended bungalow.

The dorm window at the back wouldn't be apparent

when viewed from the street scene.

So when walking along the street scene,

you would see three bungalows of similar style

with gable ends.

And that was gonna be my follow -up question,

was from the front elevation from the street,

looking along the streetscape,

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:14:38

there would be, I don't know how many others,

but the 12, 13 and 14 would look fairly similar

from the streetscape, is that the position?

That's correct.

Councillor Wilson.

Thank you.

Could officers please explain why this wouldn't be covered

under permitted development?

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:15:03

Because quite often dormers would be covered under that.

And also address the issue of overbearing

with regard to, you just spoke about street scene

and one of the comments was about overbearing

and how you judge overbearing in the context

because one of the comments was,

This is, as a dormer, it's just in from the edges

of the new gable ends.

It's not in the centre as you might normally see a dormer.

It's almost all the way across.

So what is your interpretation of,

would be overbearing because the bulk of the work

is to the back of the property in effect?

And how would that be judged

and why was this not be taken under permitted development?

So I start with the first question

about permitted development.

So you can, under permitted development,

you can build normal windows

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:16:06

and you can also do hip to gable extensions.

In this case, because they're doing both,

there is a restriction with regards to the volume

that that would create.

So the combination of the two would take it over that volume

that would be allowed under permitted development.

But it's not unusual to have dormer windows

in rear bungalows such as this,

because they can often, if they,

for example, if his building was originally

a gable -ended bungalow, then the dormer window

likely wouldn't need permission,

because it would have been permitted development.

In terms of overbearing, normally,

that's an issue if something is projecting

Significantly over a fence when viewed for me regarding our window in this case

as as Rachel is mentioned the main for the

Which

If I could just bring the plan up

So the property

Property to the south

There is a window just to the next to where the gable would be.

So it would be the gable element that would be the most impactful on that property.

That gable element could be built under permitted development if the dom window wasn't being

proposed with it.

So it is a fallback position potentially that should be given material weight.

So if they could build something without permission

that was equally impactful,

then we have to have regard to that.

But equally, the way that the gable end would be featured

with the pitch roofs on either side,

we wouldn't consider that to be overbearing in this case.

Councillor Hawke.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:18:18

So windows, looking into other people's gardens, is not seen as too much of a loss of privacy

based on what I've just heard.

Sorry, go ahead.

So we weren't talking about privacy, we were talking about overbearing.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:18:35

So in terms of overbearing, that's an issue with the outlook from the window.

So when you're looking out of the window, what is the impact on the occupies of that

property you use the window privacy would be if there was a window in say the side elevation

that was looking in to the neighbouring property. So for example, in this case, there isn't

any windows that would that wouldn't be obscure glazed in the side elevations of the proposed

extension. So it wouldn't be directly overlooking resulting from that. There is new windows

floor level as a result of the dormer window, but that would be facing to the rear. And

that's a common relationship in a built -up area. And something that's allowed under permitted

development for example, it's considered to be reasonable and acceptable in an area which

is built up.

So there will be overlooking into people's gardens, but because this is a built -up area,

the view is that that is just part and parcel of living in a town environment.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:19:37

It's a matter of fact of the degree of overlooking so if it was if there was a

rear projection that projected beyond the rear elevation of the

neighbour for example and there was a side window looking directly down onto

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:19:53

their main amenity area that could be an issue but a rear window which

only allows oblique views into the neighbouring garden that wouldn't be grounds for

refusal. Just to follow up if I may, on the parking situation there's been

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:20:08

quite a lot of discussion here this evening about parking. How much is that a

planning consideration? So it is a planning consideration, so what we look

at then therefore is the policy. So we have a set of standards which which sets

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:20:28

out how many parking spaces should be provided for development. In this case, the standard

is for free car parking spaces. And as we reviewed on the site today, there would be

sufficient space in the existing driveway to accommodate those free spaces.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:20:49

Okay, so a follow up on that is what I saw in the diagrams, and it's probably not to

scale, but they looked like saloon cars or maybe even sports cars rather than maybe estate

cars. I'm wondering what size of car would fit on the driveway. Can you get three larger

cars inside that driveway where they can all reverse out by themselves without another

car moving?

Yeah, the

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:21:22

So this is it's not based on cars. It's based on the standards in terms of what's what's in the

Car parking standards and that that sets out the size of parking spaces. Okay, so we've looked at the

What's available what the space is available in the front garden and we consider that they would there is enough space to accommodate those free

spaces, potentially in a tandem arrangement at the very least, but there'd be enough space

to accommodate free cars to meet the standards and therefore it meets with the policy.

Just a quick question on that parking. Sometimes, or quite often on parking, we're looking for

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:21:58

cars to be able to turn and come out forwards. Obviously this is a cul -de -sac which is not

without busy traffic basically it I

Don't believe that they would be able to turn and do that. So presumably we've taken some decision on the acceptability of that

Yeah, it is a quiet coldest act. So I mean highway code code ideally it requires vehicles to reverse into

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:22:23

driveways

I'm gonna reverse out but this in terms of causing an obstruction or

or highway danger, given the speed with which vehicles

will be travelling down there, it wouldn't be an issue.

It's quite a common arrangement for a cul -de -sac

such as this to have car parking in a tandem arrangement.

Councillor Wilson.

Yeah, thank you, Chen.

Just on that point, I was just looking back

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:22:58

at the officer's report, paragraph 4 .4 says,

as Buckinghamshire parking guidance

requires a four bed dwelling in this location

to provide three parking spaces.

These have been indicated on plan reference P1306.

I'm just looking at the planning portal.

There is no P1306 on the planning portal.

So am I missing a plan?

I'll just cheque for you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to be able to see graphically

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:23:26

what highways have referred to in their response in terms of the layout of the

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:23:31

parking spaces but I can't see on the planning portal there's a document

called parking plan sorry councillor I'm looking at the

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:23:44

popular at the moment there's a document 5th of March called parking you're right

it's it's not listed under p1 306 its parking plan so so it is on the portal

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:23:53

I can see it thank you okay one of the eight questions I've just quickly asked

When we're talking about character,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:24:00

we're normally looking at character from the street scene.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It's generally accepted that what's viewable

from the rear garden,

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:24:11

you're gonna be less impactful on the character of the area

than what would be visible from the public realm.

So as you're walking along the street,

so in this case,

walking along the cul -de -sac,

what you'll be presented with is a bungalow,

which is very similar in scale and style and design to both neighbouring properties.

Do we have any other questions at all?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:24:41

We can now move on to the debate. Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much chairman.

This is the classic Bucks dilemma.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:24:51

We've got a situation whereby people move into a lovely neighbourhood,

they don't want to move out of that neighbourhood or can't afford to move out of that neighbourhood.

They want to retain school places.

So if they move, there's a chance they won't be able to get to the same neighbourhood and hold on to school places.

I empathise with the feelings of the parish council and with Councillor Darby in terms of the overall design.

I think if I can clarify something for Councillor Hogg who didn't come on to the

Inspection today if you

If you have a look at this plan

There's a section of flat roof

The neighbouring house has exactly the same extension on the rear and it has a pitched roof on that

So when you're looking out of the dormer windows, the impact is far less than would would appear

one would normally assume that someone's gonna take

the dorm room away to the back.

The foliage at the back on either side,

the fences on either side of the back,

very little in the way of overlooking.

I note from the comments that there are a lot of people

complaining that this was going to cause mass overlooking.

The only people affected on either side of the property.

The back of the property got fully matured trees.

The building lines for those properties are set well back.

So in fact, even looking straight out of the window,

There didn't seem to be much overlooking in that direction either.

As far as the street scene is concerned, it's completely unaffected.

Unfortunately, I'm trying to have a look here on Google Maps.

And when you go to Google Earth, you try and see the street scene, and the person next

door decided to have their house omitted, so it's actually masked out, so you can't

see it.

But if they really want to make the street scene to match all the other houses, then

And if the people in number 13 took all their bushes down,

et cetera, the front to possibly improve the parking,

then you'd see quite clearly that the houses

are all pretty much identical,

and that this really doesn't show up very much at all.

And in fact, the house, the neighbouring house

to the right, as you look at this property,

the bridge line is slightly higher anyway.

And so this is being brought up in time.

So it's not the most attractive development,

but it provides the space that the people need,

in my opinion doesn't impact sufficiently on the on the neighbours

for me not to not be okay to okay this I'm normally the first to kick something

out I don't like but I'm afraid I can't see the substantive arguments for it

thank you who else would like to comment

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:27:28

Councillor Roberts.

Yeah, I'm similarly minded, I think, on this.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:27:35

The development provides space in the property

that the applicant wants, and then looking at it

from a policy point of view, looking at the streetscape,

the gable ends, it, when we visited today,

it was quite clear that the proposed development

would look very similar to the other properties

along the street. There was very little to distinguish it from the others. I've

heard the comments made but they don't carry sufficient weight in my view to

oppose the recommendation.

Any other comments? Councillor Sherwood.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:28:22

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 1:28:27

I found the comments from the two persons that were on the site very helpful.

The trouble with applications of this sort is that actually it's a complete judgement call.

You cannot say objectively that this is out of character or in character in a lot of close applications.

Planning officers have rather more experience of determining that than committee members do.

So I always listen carefully to what planning officers say, although colleagues that I've been on committees with before

will know that I'm not overly guided by that.

And if I feel they need to be challenged, I will challenge.

But that's what I'm here for.

In this case, I don't see that were we to refuse this

and the applicant were to appeal,

that we would be able to defend the position.

I say that with a bit of regret.

But nevertheless, that's the view.

The problem with parking is a different one.

The problem that we have there is what the rules say and what reality is.

The rules define a garage as a parking place.

A garage is nowadays normally a very large garden shed

in which people do not park their cars.

So you're in a situation where the garage quite often is not used for parking,

and that effectively takes one space away.

Nevertheless, the rules are what the rules are,

and I think it might be something in developing the new local plan,

that we need to look at parking rules very carefully in terms of that sort of situation.

But we are where we are.

We have the rules that we have today,

And again, in terms of planning all, the parking spaces are there.

Whatever reality in terms of the way that people use them is.

So again, I agree with previous two speakers.

Thank you.

Councillor Wilson.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:30:47

Having been on the site visit and seeing for myself, I do broadly agree with colleagues.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:30:50

However, I am troubled by a conflict with policy H18,

which I think Councillor Darby referenced in her speech,

which just says requires roof extensions

to respect the scale proportions, existing windows,

and other features of the external appearance of the roof,

an elevation which they're layer catered,

should avoid excessive horizontal emphasis,

should not dominate the roof,

and should not be designed to provide additional floor space

and I would suggest probably on balance this dormer does provide additional floor space and is,

has, well you couldn't have more excessive horizontal emphasis because you'd be going to the ends

and it literally just goes to narrowly within the ends.

So whilst I on balance probably agree with, I am troubled by the conflict with this policy

as I always am when we conflict with any policy.

And I would, I know we're in the discussion phase and I probably could have asked it as

a technical question.

But I would like some clarification as to why on the planning balance we can choose

to ignore that.

Yes, we're just gonna get a response for you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:32:16

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:32:19

Yes, so since the local plan was adopted many years ago, Chiltern District Council adopted

a residential housing design guide and supplementary planning document which provides further clarification

on what would be acceptable as part of extensions to the houses.

It does say that large flat roof dormer windows are not encouraged because they often result

in a window which appears bulky and overly dominating in a roof slope. But it then goes

on to say that flat roofs may only be appropriate on rear roof slopes which are not readily

visible to the surrounding area or in roof slopes which have a steeper pitch. It's essentially

saying that it's distinguishing between large dormer windows which are visible within the

and those which are to the rear.

So it provides a little bit more flexibility

than what perhaps was set out originally

in the local plan policy.

So the SPD trumps or adds clarity

to the policy H18 is what you're saying?

Yes.

Thank you.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:33:24

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:33:27

I think myself as somebody who visited the site,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:33:31

I think I can understand the issues on parking.

It's the same issues we have in many places where,

but as a committee has been said before,

the policies basically state in terms of

what we have to decide on and in terms of what highways

accept, how people actually use that space.

And it is not something we actually make a judgement on.

But we do know in so many developments,

the parking becomes a problem long term.

But we actually have to go with the rules

and the guidance and that's what the officers have to deal with.

In terms of character particularly, and I think what we've just talked through in terms

of if this storm had been on the front of the building, I think that would have been

a completely different decision and we would be saying that it would be impacting the character,

it would not be looking matching the street scene, particularly walking up and down.

There is some differences in the street scene, there are some of the bungalows which remain

pretty much as they would have been when they were built and there are others

which have had changes to them over time so they're not all the same and and so I

think where we're leading to is on balance there's not enough here for us

to say that that we wouldn't be accepting the officers recommendation

but I'd like to see if somebody would like to make a proposal

I think the discussion here is that we should accept the refusal.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:35:08

I think that's what I'm hearing so I'll propose that and look for somebody to accept that

subject to the...

It's not a refusal.

Sorry.

Approval.

Accept the recommendation.

All right.

So you said refusal.

Did I miss a thing?

You said use refusal.

Causing some confusion there.

accept the recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a composer, do we have a seconder?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:35

Okay, Councillor Holg first, the seconding.

Can we put that to the vote?

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:35:40

I don't know if the officer's having anything

to say beforehand.

No, fine.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:44

We can put the recommendation as stated by the officer

to the vote.

Those in favour of the officer's recommendation.

Okay, and I will abstain but only as the chairman I would agree with the committee's view on this so

The item will be approved

conditions

Thank you, we'll now move to

6 PL/25/5596/FA - Penny Royal, Dukes Wood Drive, Gerrards Cross SL9 7LW

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:36:16

We now need item six on the agenda

PL 25

and I would now call Rachel Timlin to cover the application.

Ms. Rachel Timlin - 1:36:47

Thank you.

So by way of an update, since the case officer's report was published, a number of additional comments have been received from a neighbour.

However, these don't raise any new material issues that haven't been dealt with within the report.

The application seeks planning commission for a part single storey, part two storey, side and rear extension, and roof alterations.

The application is being recommended for refusal solely on technicality as the

ecology surveys which were undertaken in 2020 are now considered out of date. As

you can see the application property is set within a large plot to the southwest

of Dukes Wood Drive and the extensions essentially infill this area squaring

off the rear of the property. At its closest point the dwelling will be

approximately 11 .7 metres from this neighbour

and around 6 .8 metres from the boundary.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:37:43

This is the front of the property.

As you can see, it's set well back

from the highway boundary and is not considered

to impact upon the street scene.

And this is a couple of photos of the rear of the property,

so the extension will come out

as far as this rear projection.

The image on the left is taken from the front of the applicant's property showing the neighbour

on the side and the photo on the right is taken from the rear of the applicant's property

again showing that neighbour.

This slide shows the existing property on the left with the proposal on the right.

So as you can see the width of the dwelling is increasing from 18 metres to just under

21 metres and the height from 7 .6 metres to around 8 .6 metres.

It's also worth noting that two very similar permissions have been granted on this site

in 2019 and 2021. This slide shows a comparison with the 2019 permission. So as you can see,

the proposal is broadly similar to that which was approved in 2019. However, the width is

lesser on the current application on account of emitting this single storey

side extension while the height is increasing by one metre. And this slide

shows a comparison with the 2021 permission so again broadly similar but

one metre wider than that which was previously consented and around 0 .3 of a

metre greater in height but with the emission of these roof lights. So given

the distance and relationship with the neighbour, it is not considered to be to the detriment

of their amenities, nor is it considered to represent overdevelopment given the sufficient

spacing to the boundaries. It is solely being recommended for refusal on the basis that

the ecology surveys have expired.

Thank you. I would like to welcome Councillor Ng, who has joined us for the final item of

the agenda.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:39:52

Chairman, I apologise for my late arrival.

I wasn't planning to come because I just had to put my dog to sleep this evening, but I've

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:39:58

decided to come.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming.

We now move to speakers.

We have three speakers.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:40:08

Councillor Jaspal Chokha, who is a Bucks Councillor for the ward, Councillor Francis Nathan, Gerald's

Wood who is an objector. We don't have an agent or an applicant.

Councillor Chokka, obviously you know how this works so that you've got three

minutes and the light will come on once you start speaking. Okay yes thank you

Chairman and thank you committee for letting me speak on this application.

Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 1:40:41

This application is being recommended as the officer said for refusal only on

ecology grounds. I think what's unusual about this site is the angling of the properties

in that the applicant's property is at an unusual angle compared to the neighbouring

property. I think if this application had been submitted on other houses on the estate

that were all, you know, parallel with the road, it probably wouldn't have been any problem

with it. It's just now this latest application is one metre taller than the

previous permitted application and it's almost like it's a rear boundary rather

than a side boundary. So I was just wanted to draw that to the attention of

the committee when they make their considerations on this. I think it

is in keeping with the character for Dukesfield Drive but the other issue

that I'm sure Mr. Wood will mention is about the potential loss of daylight

because of the angling and I'm just wondering if it's appropriate for there to be further

assessment of that submitted as part of another application when it comes afterwards and whether

we want to put that down as one of the reasons. The other point I'd like to mention is about,

there's a lot, there's quite a lot of trees on site and on the Dukesfield Estate generally

there's been a lot of loss of trees and properties and I'd noticed that there wasn't a tree report

done as part of the application. So I would like that to be included in any future application.

And again, perhaps that should be mentioned in the refusal. I have had a lot of residents

on the estate mentioned to me, the amount of trees they are losing, that is taking away

from the name of the estate, which is the Dukeswood estate. So those were my concerns

about potential additional factors you may want to include as part of the refusal. Thank

you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:42:44

Thank you. Are there any questions for the Councillor? No? There's no questions. Thank

you very much. Councillor Francis Nathan.

Good evening, Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this meeting. Well, I more

or less agree with what my colleague just had just said. And I had visited the site

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:43:04

twice yesterday and this morning and I'm a bit concerned about the change in

height of the roof because if you generally look at the property I don't

think with the current height there will be any you know light or shadowing on

the on the neighbouring property but if they were to go up another one metre I'm

I'm not too sure about that.

I think that will cause some shadowing.

And the worrying part about my visit was the hedges

and the trees, they are really too high.

I wouldn't want this, if that was my property,

I wouldn't want those hedges to be blocking daylight.

And yeah, besides that I agree

with what Councillor Ciaocha said, thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:44:05

No, thank you. Mr John Wood.

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 1:44:18

Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I thank the Judge Cross Town Council for their strong efforts to understand my and

our objection and thank them for calling in PL 25 5596 FA for further review.

Public Speakers - Objectors - 1:44:43

I thank Councillor Mr Nathan for his site visit to our house yesterday and

again today to meet me in person. I thank the case officer for the case

report. The meeting guidelines instruct me not to address the loss of light caused by

the shared boundary evergreen cypress trees which are 10 metres tall and along the non -shared

boundary, which are 15 metres tall and block out a lot of light to our property.

Moving on, I acknowledge in the most recent design drawings an amendment to the first floor

configuration so that it incorporates two frosted glass windows closest to Akersed. This is much

welcomed. However, this planning application is proposed to be a two -floor

storey extension at the front, side and rear and its ground footprint is

is equivalent to 22 metres times 10 metres covering 220 square metres area.

I therefore wish to stress a different opinion to the case officer report

and her recommendation that stipulates the works would not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenities.

Should the application proceed, we will look on to a vertical wall 6 .2 metres in height.

The roof ridge height, as described by Mr Councillor Francis, is going to be 8 .6 metres in height.

The roof itself will be 2 .4 metres in height and 22 metres in length with apparently no rooms.

In summing up, the impact of the roof ridge height will shut out light from our living room and our dining room.

It will adversely impact our well -being.

I am concerned about retrospective design amendments such as the inclusion of roof dormer

windows or roof village windows in the future.

Thank you.

You had a couple of seconds extra there, but you were able to finish.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:47:31

Do we have any questions?

Councillor Harris.

A straightforward question.

Which house is yours?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:47:39

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:47:52

I don't see any other questions, so if we'd like to go to any technical questions for

the officers.

Councillor Sherwell.

Yes, too.

So firstly, what is officers' opinion

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 1:48:04

in terms of the height or scale of the proposal

with the specific point of cutting light or overlooking

the neighbouring property?

And secondly, there's sort of slightly contradictory talk

about trees.

some people not wanting them removed and some people apparently wanting them removed,

I would assume that unless some of the trees or hedges need to be cut down to allow the development

to actually happen, that the existence of the other trees is not material to the application.

I mean neighbours may not like them but they're not affected by this planning

application is my understanding.

Yes so in answer to the first part of your question with regard to the height

Ms. Rachel Timlin - 1:49:15

and the issues with overlooking or light, given that there's no first floor flank

windows proposed and those closest at the rear are conditioned to be obscure

glazed we've not raised any objection in terms of overlooking and with regard to

light or appearing overbearing given the distance from that neighbour we don't

consider that it will lead to a detrimental impact in that sense and as

you say the issue with the trees would not be relevant to the consideration of

this application

Councillor Hoag, then Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:49:55

So it's described in the Planning Officer's report how this is important, Section 12 of

the MPPF and the National Design Guide on local identity, that sort of thing, that this

property needs to stay in keeping with those around it.

But just looking at those around it, and I have actually

been up and down that street myself, first of all

I've not noticed any of them be that wide.

The width of the proposal seems to be

really quite astonishing. Secondly

The way the windows are shaped is not in keeping with the nearby area where you have these sort of landscape rather than portrait windows,

they're quite fat windows, with few glazing bars where the area actually has a character with a lot of glazing bars across the windows.

They tend to be long rather than wide with glazing bars and they don't seem to have those proportions either.

Which looks in comparison to the existing front and side elevations to be really quite a large change.

I'm wondering why the officers report seems to believe that this is in keeping with the

with the local area

The local area does there isn't a consistent style of dwelling and in the street it's it's very mixed in terms of size

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:51:45

Design I

mean this dwelling itself

Existing already exhibits differences to some of the other properties, but that's that's not unusual

The street isn't there isn't a consistent style of housing down there say

yes, the house would be wide but it's a large plot and

there would be a

Large amount of space surrounding the building remaining which which would be in keeping with the area generally

Our opinion is that yes, it may differ from some of the other properties in the world,

but that's consistent with the inconsistency of dwellings on the street.

But there are, if you look, if you go down the streets, there are things that they do

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:52:34

all have in common, or that the vast majority of them have in common, which is much, much

more often do they have tall rather than wide windows. The vast majority of them have glazing

bars rather than just be this big empty gap of a window and in terms of the proportion of them

they are not they tend to not have width of this proposed degree. I've not seen any of them. There

are sort of kind of almost like mini mansions or manor houses but they they

still stay within a proportion rather than go this wide that's that's that's

my challenge to the officers on that well there might be differences but

there are also things that that mean that they share characteristics.

Just on that point the officers looking at the windows the windows that they're

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:53:33

in here look like they're just replicating what's already there on the house as far as

I'm aware. I don't think they're changing unless the officer's going to tell me something

different in terms of the style. This is the style but extended. It may not be a choice

that you might want but it's the style that actually this house has in terms of the windows.

I don't think they're changing.

How are the elevations for the existing in comparison?

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:54:09

Do you see a lot of wide windows compared to the tall windows of the existing house?

On the rear elevations actually.

Looking at the street scene, there are other examples of wide windows.

But in terms of the mix of dwellings down that street, I think if your only objection

to the application is simply that the windows are too wide, it would be very hard to say

that that was...

Yes, but as I mentioned, the house is in a very wide plot and there's plenty of space

around it to accommodate that.

having visited the site today walking down the street I don't I don't agree

that a dwelling of this size and style would appear prominent when you're

walking down that street such that it would be harmful to the street scene

council Wilson then council Matthews I don't recall seeing it in the officer

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:55:11

presentation but in the planning portal the site plan with the extensions added

I think gives a comparable footprint and I think that it doesn't look dissimilar

from other properties opposite on the other side of the road or on the other

side of Howard's thicket so further down the road in terms of the overall

footprint of the proposed extension.

We can show the sat location plan.

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:55:48

As you can see just further south of the site, another dwelling is wide and less space around

it as well.

Councillor Matthews.

Thank you.

In this case, we think we have to take account of the previous planning permission that has

been permitted for this house.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:56:25

And you say in your report that the current proposal is only slightly wider than the previous

proposal which was approved.

so how what is slightly wider please

so in terms of the comparison with the 2019 permission the width on this

Ms. Rachel Timlin - 1:56:43

current proposal was actually lesser as they've emitted this single storey side

extension and in comparison with the 2021 permission it's a metre wider than

the previous one

Councillor Roberts.

Yes, just a couple of points, but the first one relates to the sort of subject that we're

on, really.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:57:06

The dimensions that we've talked about with the previous consents and so on, how does

that relate to the size of the footprint of the proposed dwelling on the plot?

So in terms of overdevelopment or whatever, what proportion of the plot would this be

taking up?

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:57:39

We don't have measurements to say in a specific proportion but as you can see it wouldn't

occupy the majority of the plot.

it would be plenty of space to the front and to the rear

and to the northern side of the building.

So it certainly wouldn't exhibit

what you term overdevelopment.

Yeah, so your position is that even with the size

of this development, that it's still within the plot,

it's not taking up disproportionate space of the plot.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:58:14

Okay, now the second question I had which relates to the the point that is in here about the grounds for refusal

Which is this is grounds for refusal this time

on the bat survey

First thing is

The proposal is in all other respects you would be recommending it for

permission if it wasn't for the bat survey element.

So just to get that confirmed.

That's correct.

So the application is considered acceptable in all respects

other than the need for bat surveys to be carried out

prior to any approval being granted.

And that's something that's set out in case law.

So at the moment we're not within the bat survey season.

So those surveys couldn't be taken out,

or carried out, sorry.

Therefore, we have to determine the application

based on what's in front of us,

and what's in front of us is out of date about survey.

So we should refuse permission.

I know I asked this when we went on the site survey today,

but for the benefit of those who weren't there,

why is it that that could not be dealt with

via a condition?

Mr Ben Robinson - 1:59:38

that's again set out in case law say we can't condition mitigation on a

situation with bats that we don't know what the situation with bats is so we

have to have the surveys which set out what what bats are if any are in the

building so that we can then condition any mitigation that's required

Yeah.

Councillor Hawke and then Councillor Wilson.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:00:03

This is actually an intriguing point, bats.

So, um,

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:00:07

every planning decision is a matter of weighting all of the different factors,

right? This, however,

seems a little bit like it's law that you've got

to do it this way.

So what happens if we approve this?

Is that, do we all go to gaol?

How does it work?

If you were to grant approval without having adequate

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:00:45

regard to the impacts on bats, any permission could be

subject to a legal challenge because it wouldn't be

in accordance with the case law.

Traditional review.

Councillors coming back to the site location plan that is that correct in

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:01:07

terms of north south east west just like that I'm fairly sure it says well let me

just double cheque the reason I ask is obviously one of the topics that has

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:01:20

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:01:23

been raised is light and sunlight and obviously if that is as it is then the

properties that would be impacted would be to the south of the property more

than to the north of the property. May I intervene here north is to the

north east on that site location map.

Apologies, I'm just double double checking.

Okay.

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:02:01

If north is to the northeast, then that would accentuate the point even more.

Yeah, so that's correct.

That is not, it's a correct orientation.

Okay.

At what point would a lighting study be triggered normally,

or would we request one from an applicant?

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:02:33

That would normally be in the cases where you've got,

for example, where the level of the development

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:02:44

is close to the boundary and would project

beyond the rear property.

And we do have in the local plan sometimes reference

to the 45 degree or 60 degree wheels.

In this case, in South Book, there is reference to that in the local plan.

This doesn't project beyond the neighbouring property.

Yes, it's slightly orientated towards, as we saw on the side, but it's the sufficient

distance from the property, so it wouldn't be considered to be unacceptable.

and it we wouldn't consider in this case a

Reason it would be reasonable to suggest that a light survey should be undertaken. It's

It's too far from the from the boundary really to to warrant that

Yeah, I think if the development was to the south

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:03:43

As councillor choker said, you know, it's the it's an odd orientation on this site that kind of raises some of the questions. So

So in trying to get the which way the sun moves around

and light falls is quite important.

But I just wanted to get clarity in my mind

that is there a trigger point where you go,

right, you need to do a light survey.

I mean, normally it's accepted a certain amount

of overshadowing might occur

and it comes down to the level of overshadowing.

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:04:11

But also we'd look particularly if there is a window

which was closely impacted, such that the light in the room would be reduced to a degree

which would provide very poor amenity. That couldn't be said for this. Yes, the roof is

increasing slightly and the building is being increased in width, but as we said, it's set

away from the boundary and it couldn't be said to be reducing daylight to a degree which

which is unacceptable.

Any other questions if you'd like to go to the debate now?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:04:55

Councillor Moore.

Chairman, I wish to support the officer's recommendation that we refuse this on ecology grounds in the material

Cllr David Moore - 2:05:05

but I also sympathise with what the town council said about the material aspects of

privacy and overdevelopment and also what Councillor Czolka says, but I very much endorse

the office's recommendation I'm happy to propose.

We have proposed that at Council Wilson. Again I will agree with the Councillor

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:05:27

Moore to second the proposal. Do we have any other? The proposal is to accept the

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:05:35

recommendation for refusal in relation to the BAT survey being not

been provided and up to date. Can I put that to the vote? Those in favour of the officer's

recommendation? Those against? Any abstentions? That is carried. Thank you very much.

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:06:23

and closes that item. Point of order chair. Chairman earlier in the meeting a

procedural matter was raised that could not at that time be resolved. I believe

we're now in a position to resolve that matter this would avoid wasting council

resources further and organising a further meeting to do so. Committee

procedural rule 2 .64 allows me to submit a motion without notice to the committee.

It does so by engaging council procedure rules. Under council procedure rule 3 .41

I propose that the committee elects the new chairman with immediate effect for the remainder of the current

council year

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:07:31

You need that seconded sure you will be

Councillor Moore I'm happy to second that chairman thank you thank you I will

now I'm vice -chairman but I will step down from chairing the meeting and I

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:07:47

think ask the all right sorry I won't vote on the motion I'm getting ahead of

myself here maybe it's the end of the on the end of the meeting okay those in

favour of the motion to spend meeting

and those against

Okay, we now hand over to the officer. Okay, please cover is there any nominations

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:08:40

Mrs Elly Cook - 2:08:43

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:08:46

for chairman yes I nominate councillor David Moore is there a seconder are

there any more nominations for chairman

Mrs Elly Cook - 2:09:07

Any more nominations? Okay so if we put that to the vote so all those in a

favour please raise your hand.

that's six in favour plays against and those abstaining so that's now a

counsellor David was being elected as chairman thank you

Oh, sorry.

Cllr David Moore - 2:10:30

Thank you very much members. Thank you officers. I think we now move to the final item of the

agenda which is the date of next meeting which is the 28th of April 2026 at 6 30 p .m. So

7 Date of next meeting

I thank you all for attending. I've also just want I've got the members availability for

8 Availability of Members attending Site Visits (if required)

site visits yes so when the next site because it's got 31st of March so on

this so the next site visits will be the day before the next meeting which will

be on the 27th of April if you can attend and don't get a flat tyre I

strongly recommend you go. Councillor Cesar has your hand up.

I'm not sure it's worth saying it now or later but is there options for

councillors to visit the sites in other particular times i .e. after 6 p .m. due to

Cllr Cole Caesar - 2:11:38

working hours and site visits?

I think I do sympathise with that we all have day jobs and lives to be getting on with.

Cllr David Moore - 2:11:49

I think the nature of site visits sometimes they have to be over two three hours and you need to see them in the day

So I imagine that's a factor would I would you like to come in on that?

Yeah, correct

Evening it wouldn't always be practical

But we can take that away

And discuss it amongst the offices

Mr Ben Robinson - 2:12:06

But we did move these meetings to the evening to ensure attendance as well because some planning meetings

Don't are not held in an evening. So

No, I appreciate that and that was very helpful doing that for me and the rest of the committee

but maybe even just site visit and if I can come back with questions. But again, I'll

Cllr Cole Caesar - 2:12:26

wait for your instructions back. Thank you, Councillor Caesar. Councillor Holt.

Yeah, just well before the meeting closes, I just want to put on record no one's in the

audience anymore, but

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:12:38

It's being webcasted and one Councillor came in here having had a personal very sad situation

in order to deal with political game playing.

I really, this is the thing in politics I really hate.

I know it's not going to change anyone's views but this is...

I don't think it's appropriate to have this in the meeting.

You're not interjecting when a member is speaking.

This is not what politics is about, and because I came two minutes late,

things happened that maybe wouldn't have happened had I arrived a minute earlier.

We should try and avoid these games, these political game playing so that members

do not need to appear who have come from a very sad situation, for example,

to stop them. Let's try and be a little bit more mature about this for our

residents in the future. Thank you Councillor Hogg. Would you like to speak?

I take the point that Councillor Hogg is making in terms of being

Cllr David Moore - 2:13:50

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:13:56

civilised. I'm very sorry but this motion which you've used and has been used

today is a travesty that has been produced which takes the Constitution to

an extreme and the point today was actually we all know on this committee we are meant

to find a substitute for whatever personal reason we may have and if you don't have a

substitute things like this can happen. So what's happened today is exactly the thing

that we're making a point that motion is unacceptable that's been put together by the officer and

we're making the point today, unless that changes, it is not really taking the constitution

in the way that we should be accepting it, which is the way you're talking about, the

constitution should be used.

It has been used and abused from the point of view of other members within the council.

This is the point today to say if one, we want to have a council that works together,

that have been working incredibly well together for a long time while we were hung council,

and then one member changes and we're in this situation, this sort of battle.

We shouldn't have to have it. It's a point that's been made.

Hopefully it goes back and the officer has a look at what has been produced

and gets back onto the centre ground of the constitution,

or the constitution is changed.

That's why we've got a situation today.

I apologise to Councillor Hogg,

but the procedure that was being followed

was the correct procedure when you were late to a meeting

when we were in that process, unfortunately.

And that's why we have time,

so we're going to try and turn up on time.

We can't do any of that.

Thank you, Councillor Waters.

I'm actually gonna put an end to this meeting now

because a lot of this can be raised

in constitutional committees in other ways.

Cllr David Moore - 2:15:48

and if you want to write to the Monitor Officer, please do,

and do that through the correct channels.

All I will say is this, this is a quasi -judicial committee.

This is not a select committee,

this is a quasi -judicial committee,

and we had a lot of people waiting because of games,

and we have to ensure business is done forward

in a constitutional manner,

and that's why, at the end of the day,

this committee will be well run under my chairmanship.

So thank you, members.

Thank you for coming here today.

I now declare the meeting closed.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Cole Caesar

Reform UK

View profile

Cllr Jaspal Chhokar

Conservative

View profile

Mrs Elly Cook

View profile

Cllr Isobel Darby

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Thomas Hogg

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Wendy Matthews

Conservative

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Jackson Ng

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Mr Ben Robinson

View profile

Cllr Alan Sherwell

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Ms. Rachel Steele

View profile

Ms. Rachel Timlin

View profile

Cllr Jonathan Waters

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Ms. Rachel Webb

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 31 March 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeTuesday, 31st March 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Apologies for absence

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:00

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:01:11

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:25

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:01:31

Cllr David Moore - 0:02:06

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:03:57

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:04:00

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:05:12

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:05:29

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:05:32

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:07:05

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:07:13

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:07:27

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:07:39

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:07:59

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:20

2 Declarations of interest

Cllr David Moore - 0:09:01

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:09:39

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:11:19

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:11:31

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:11:42

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:11:56

4 PL/25/3172/FA - The Academy - The South Buckinghamshire, Stoke Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4NL

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:12:49

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:22:11

Public Speaker - Supporter - 0:22:40

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:24:33

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:40

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:24:46

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:25:23

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:26:09

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:26:13

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:26:35

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:27:19

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:28:43

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:28:49

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:30:03

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:31:29

Public Speaker - Agent for The Applicant - 0:32:15

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:33:05

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:33:20

Cllr David Moore - 0:33:23

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:33:48

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:34:08

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:10

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:35:16

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:37:27

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:38:48

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:38:51

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:39:23

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:05

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:40:22

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:40:54

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:41:16

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:41:21

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:42:22

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:42:34

Rebecca Jarratt - 0:42:42

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:43:20

Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:43:55

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:44:01

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:44:52

Mr Ben Robinson - 0:45:33

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:45:57

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 31st March 2026 at 6:30pm