Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 22 April 2026, 2:00pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 22nd April 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Harry Thomas
  2. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Phil Gomm
  2. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Dayna Simmons
  2. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  3. Cllr Frank Mahon
  4. Cllr Phil Gomm
  5. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  6. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  7. Cllr Phil Gomm
  8. Cllr Frank Mahon
  9. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  10. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  11. Cllr Frank Mahon
  12. Cllr Chris Poll
  13. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  14. Cllr Chris Poll
  15. Cllr Frank Mahon
  16. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  17. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  18. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  19. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  20. Cllr Frank Mahon
  21. Cllr Clive Harriss
  22. Cllr Frank Mahon
  23. Cllr Llew Monger
  24. Cllr Frank Mahon
  25. Cllr Phil Gomm
  26. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  27. Cllr Frank Mahon
  28. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  29. Cllr Frank Mahon
  30. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  31. Cllr Frank Mahon
  32. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  33. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  34. Cllr Frank Mahon
  35. Cllr Phil Gomm
  36. Cllr Andy Huxley
  37. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  2. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Frank Mahon
  2. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  3. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  4. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  5. Cllr Frank Mahon
  6. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  7. Cllr Frank Mahon
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Frank Mahon
  10. Cllr Andy Huxley
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Frank Mahon
  13. Cllr Phil Gomm
  14. Public Speakers
  15. Cllr Phil Gomm
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Gregory Smith
  18. Public Speakers
  19. Cllr Gregory Smith
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Gregory Smith
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Frank Mahon
  24. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  27. Public Speakers
  28. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  29. Public Speakers
  30. Cllr Frank Mahon
  31. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Llew Monger
  34. Cllr Frank Mahon
  35. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Frank Mahon
  38. Public Speakers
  39. Cllr Frank Mahon
  40. Cllr Chris Poll
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Frank Mahon
  43. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Clive Harriss
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  48. Public Speakers
  49. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  50. Public Speakers
  51. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  52. Public Speakers
  53. Cllr Andy Huxley
  54. Public Speakers
  55. Cllr Andy Huxley
  56. Public Speakers
  57. Cllr Andy Huxley
  58. Public Speakers
  59. Cllr Frank Mahon
  60. Cllr Llew Monger
  61. Public Speakers
  62. Cllr Frank Mahon
  63. Cllr Phil Gomm
  64. Public Speakers
  65. Cllr Frank Mahon
  66. Cllr Phil Gomm
  67. Public Speakers
  68. Cllr Phil Gomm
  69. Public Speakers
  70. Cllr Phil Gomm
  71. Public Speakers
  72. Cllr Phil Gomm
  73. Cllr Frank Mahon
  74. Cllr Gregory Smith
  75. Public Speakers
  76. Cllr Frank Mahon
  77. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  78. Cllr Gregory Smith
  79. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  80. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  81. Cllr Chris Poll
  82. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  83. Cllr Frank Mahon
  84. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  85. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  86. Cllr Frank Mahon
  87. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  88. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  89. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  90. Cllr Gregory Smith
  91. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  92. Cllr Gregory Smith
  93. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  94. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  95. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  96. Cllr Frank Mahon
  97. Cllr Chris Poll
  98. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  99. Cllr Chris Poll
  100. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  101. Cllr Chris Poll
  102. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  103. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  104. Ms. Joanna Horton
  105. Cllr Chris Poll
  106. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  107. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  108. Cllr Chris Poll
  109. Cllr Frank Mahon
  110. Cllr Llew Monger
  111. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  112. Cllr Llew Monger
  113. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  114. Cllr Frank Mahon
  115. Cllr Andy Huxley
  116. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  117. Ms. Joanna Horton
  118. Cllr Andy Huxley
  119. Ms. Joanna Horton
  120. Cllr Frank Mahon
  121. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  122. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  123. Cllr Frank Mahon
  124. Cllr Phil Gomm
  125. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  126. Cllr Phil Gomm
  127. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  128. Cllr Phil Gomm
  129. Cllr Frank Mahon
  130. Cllr Clive Harriss
  131. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  132. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  133. Nina Hewitt-Jones
  134. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  135. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  136. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  137. Cllr Gregory Smith
  138. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  139. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  140. Cllr Frank Mahon
  141. Cllr Clive Harriss
  142. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  143. Cllr Frank Mahon
  144. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  145. Cllr Frank Mahon
  146. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  147. Cllr Frank Mahon
  148. Cllr Gregory Smith
  149. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  150. Cllr Frank Mahon
  151. Cllr Chris Poll
  152. Cllr Frank Mahon
  153. Cllr Llew Monger
  154. Cllr Frank Mahon
  155. Cllr Phil Gomm
  156. Cllr Frank Mahon
  157. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  158. Cllr Frank Mahon
  159. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  160. Cllr Frank Mahon
  161. Cllr Clive Harriss
  162. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  163. Cllr Frank Mahon
  164. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  165. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  166. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  167. Cllr Frank Mahon
  168. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  169. Cllr Clive Harriss
  170. Cllr Frank Mahon
  171. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  172. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  173. Cllr Frank Mahon
  174. Cllr Phil Gomm
  175. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  2. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  3. Cllr Frank Mahon
  4. Cllr Llew Monger
  5. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  6. Cllr Llew Monger
  7. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  8. Cllr Frank Mahon
  9. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  10. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  11. Cllr Frank Mahon
  12. Cllr Chris Poll
  13. Ms. Joanna Horton
  14. Cllr Frank Mahon
  15. Cllr Chris Poll
  16. Cllr Frank Mahon
  17. Cllr Phil Gomm
  18. Cllr Frank Mahon
  19. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  20. Cllr Frank Mahon
  21. Cllr Phil Gomm
  22. Cllr Frank Mahon
  23. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  24. Cllr Frank Mahon
  25. Cllr Gregory Smith
  26. Cllr Frank Mahon
  27. Cllr Chris Poll
  28. Cllr Frank Mahon
  29. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  30. Cllr Frank Mahon
  31. Cllr Llew Monger
  32. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  33. Cllr Frank Mahon
  34. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  35. Cllr Andy Huxley
  36. Cllr Clive Harriss
  37. Cllr Frank Mahon
  38. Cllr Phil Gomm
  39. Cllr Frank Mahon
  40. Cllr Clive Harriss
  41. Cllr Frank Mahon
  42. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  43. Cllr Frank Mahon
  44. Cllr Phil Gomm
  45. Cllr Frank Mahon
  46. Cllr Frank Mahon
  47. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  48. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Anna Souter
  2. Cllr Frank Mahon
  3. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  4. Public Speakers
  5. Cllr Frank Mahon
  6. Cllr Phil Gomm
  7. Public Speakers
  8. Cllr Phil Gomm
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Frank Mahon
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Frank Mahon
  13. Cllr Llew Monger
  14. Cllr Phil Gomm
  15. Cllr Frank Mahon
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Frank Mahon
  18. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  19. Public Speakers
  20. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  21. Public Speakers
  22. Cllr Frank Mahon
  23. Cllr Chris Poll
  24. Cllr Llew Monger
  25. Cllr Frank Mahon
  26. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  27. Public Speakers
  28. Cllr Chris Poll
  29. Public Speakers
  30. Cllr Chris Poll
  31. Public Speakers
  32. Cllr Frank Mahon
  33. Public Speakers
  34. Cllr Frank Mahon
  35. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  38. Cllr Frank Mahon
  39. Cllr Phil Gomm
  40. Public Speakers
  41. Cllr Frank Mahon
  42. Cllr Chris Poll
  43. Cllr Frank Mahon
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  46. Cllr Frank Mahon
  47. Cllr Phil Gomm
  48. Public Speakers
  49. Cllr Frank Mahon
  50. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  51. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  52. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  53. Cllr Frank Mahon
  54. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  55. Cllr Frank Mahon
  56. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  57. Anna Souter
  58. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  59. Cllr Frank Mahon
  60. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  61. Cllr Frank Mahon
  62. Cllr Phil Gomm
  63. Anna Souter
  64. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  65. Cllr Frank Mahon
  66. Cllr Llew Monger
  67. Cllr Andy Huxley
  68. Cllr Frank Mahon
  69. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  70. Cllr Frank Mahon
  71. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  72. Cllr Frank Mahon
  73. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  74. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  75. Cllr Frank Mahon
  76. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  77. Cllr Frank Mahon
  78. Cllr Phil Gomm
  79. Cllr Frank Mahon
  80. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  81. Cllr Frank Mahon
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:00:00
Good afternoon Councillors, Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to Buckinghamshire Council Central
and North Bucks Area Planning Committee. Please note that this meeting will be webcast and
the public and the press can see and hear the meeting through the webcast. In the unlikely
event that there is a technical issue with the webcast, the meeting will be paused until
this issue has been resolved. There are a couple of housekeeping items to cover. Members,
please note that the use of mobile phones is not permitted during this meeting, so please
either turn them off or put them on silent. iPads can be used to access Mudgov app only.
Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand at the appropriate time.
Please remember to turn on your microphone before speaking and switch it off when you have finished.
In the event of a fire alarm, please use the nearest fire exit, which are situated in front
of me and to my left.
Situated to the right of the main entrance, sorry, and assemble in the overflow car park,
which is situated to the right of the main entrance when you exit the building.
If there are any members of the press present, please can you make yourselves known?
Okay, moving on to item one on the agenda, do we have any apologies for absence?

1 Apologies

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:01:57
Yes, we do have apologies from Councillor Kahn and Councillor Hussain is substituting for him and Councillor Feeley and Councillor Harris is substituting for him.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:02:03
Thank you. Toning now to agenda item 2, do we agree the minutes of the meeting held on

2 Minutes

the 4th of February 2026 as a correct record? These can be found on page 3 of the agenda
pack. Thank you. I will now sign these as a correct record.
Item 3 on the agenda, declarations of interest. Do any members have any interests to declare,

3 Declarations of Interest

please?
Yes, Councillor Gorm.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:08
I have several, please, Chairman, to disclose if I'm correct. Firstly, with the crematorium
at Bearton. I'm a landowner quite near by to there so I don't know if that's against it but
I have no problems to look at that application with an open mind and continue on that one.
Secondly my next declaration will be is so one of the applications is on my ward which is at Hardwick
which is what we're looking at again I come with an open mind. I was not the ward member that was
mentioned within the papers,
it was a ward member from a different area.
So I need to make that quite clear
for my residents of that area at the same time.
And then the third, I can't remember what it is now,
the third of the applications is another one
we're gonna be looking over at Holker.
So the owner of that property
is a well -known person within the area.
I know of him, he's not a person friend,
but again, I come with, and my land's nearby,
but I come with an open mind yet again
to discuss these applications. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor O 'Connell. We will now
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:04:16
consider the officer's reports and before we do so I will clarify the order
in which the applications will be considered. The Planning Officer will
introduce the application on any relevant updates. The local members,
parish or town council representatives, members of the public and the agent
applicant will be invited to read out their statements in the following order
local member, parish or town council representative, objector, supporter, agent
and or applicant. After each public speaking statement members are able to
ask speakers only for clarification on matters raised in their statement. These must be addressed
through the Chairman. Members may not ask the Speaker questions about topics not addressed
in their statement. I will then ask members if they have any technical questions of the
Following this, the entire committee will then discuss the application.
Members may seek further clarification from officers on points regarding the application
or on points raised by speakers in the main debate.
Officers will respond to issues and questions raised by the members.
The committee will then make a decision by vote.
members will need to propose and second the recommendations.
I now move to agenda item four.

4 PL/25/6762/VRC - Bierton Crematorium, Cane End Lane, Bierton, Buckinghamshire HP22 5BH

We now move to item number four,
application PL, oblique 25, oblique 6762,
oblique VRC at page 5 of the agenda pack. I will now call on Case Officer Nina Hewitt -Jones
to introduce the report on the application. Thank you.
Dayna Simmons - 0:06:36
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Councillors. This application is being bought before the
Central and North Buckinghamshire Area Committee because Bearton Crematorium is owned and maintained
by Buckinghamshire Council and the application has been submitted by Buckinghamshire Council.
In accordance with the Council's constitution, such planning applications must be determined
at the relevant committees to ensure openness and transparency. The application proposes the
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 0:07:02
variation of a condition on the existing consent to change the hours of operation.
The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act as amended
to vary those hours of opening.
Although often referred to as an application to vary or remove a condition, an application
under Section 73 of the Act actually has no effect on the original permission.
It's not an amendment to the earlier permission.
It's a separate freestanding permission that the applicant is entitled to implement or
to ignore.
The principle of development was established by the grant
of the previous planning permission, 1401125 APP.
In granting planning permission under that reference,
the description of the development being a single
chapel crematorium with a single storey building,
associated facilities, private and remembrance gardens,
parking facilities, service areas,
and offsite highway enhancements,
condition six of that application
proposed sought to limit the use
of the specific opening times to 10 a .m. to 4 p .m.
on Monday to Friday, 10 a .m. to 2 p .m. on Saturdays,
with no funeral services permitted to take place
on Sundays or bank holidays.
Since the granting of that permission,
the Bail of Aylesbury local plan has been adopted.
In addition, there have been updates to the NPPA PPF.
These changes to the national
and local development plan policies
would not affect the principle of the previous decision
of the planning authority in relation
to the crematorium previously approved.
And that has been operational now for a number of years.
As such, the principle of development has been established
and it's only the proposed change in hours
that needs to be addressed at this time.
The current application seeks permission to vary condition six
to extend the hours from, to 9 a .m. to 5 p .m. on Monday
to Friday rather than 10 a .m. to 4 p .m. as per the current condition.
The extended opening hours sought represents an intensification of the use of the site
and would enable a greater number of funeral services to take place at the site
which would accord with policy D6
of the Bail of Aylesbury local plan
and policies B1 and B2 of the Bearton neighbourhood plan.
The proposal is therefore considered
to be acceptable in principle
and would accord with the relevant policies.
In this instance, the similarities
of the proposed variation of condition six
would propose no unacceptable harm to the area.
The extended opening hours of use
is unlikely to result in a material impact
on the comings and goings to the site.
As noted in the officer report,
the building has been in situ for a number of years.
There would be no physical changes on site
as a result of the proposed change of hours of operation.
Therefore the proposed variation of condition six
would not result in any adverse impacts
in terms of the character of the area
or to neighbouring amenity.
The increase in opening hours
by an additional two hours daily Monday to Friday
would have no material impact on the permitted use
of the site as a crematorium.
And as such, the proposed variation would accord
with the description of development approved
under the previous permission.
Overall, the scheme can be considered
as a sustainable development and accord
with the relevant policies of the development plan.
The site is located to the north of the bend
in Cane End Lane, where it turns south towards Bearden Village,
further down becoming Rousham Road
and extending to Aylesbury Road.
There is one dwelling close by, Cavern Farm,
which is to the south of the site,
as you can see on the slide.
Associated farm buildings also extend to the south.
The surrounding area is mostly rural in nature,
with the addition of the aforementioned dwelling
and farm buildings, and also Buckinghamshire Animal Care
centre to the southeast. Here are a selection of photographs of the site.
Showing the existing building and car parking area. And here is a location plan
and aerial image of the site.
This is a comparison between the proposed
and the existing condition showing that it relates
to the opening hours on Mondays to Fridays.
Following the publication of this agenda,
no updates to the report are required.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Nina.
There are no public speakers for this item,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:12:24
So do members have any technical questions for the officers? If so raise your hands, please.
Sorry, Councillor Gomm.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:12:54
Thank you very much Chairman and the officer, if you could just on technical, you had mentioned
about to increase the time, the variation of the time because of the needed use of the
... the use was increasing at that crematorium. It's a shame it doesn't show within the technical
data of how many funerals there are during the course of the day and during the course
of the week that we could have compared your comment with.
That would have been quite helpful.
And also, you've got about intensification of the area.
And again, when we talk about, say, traffic flow in and out of there,
we have no detail of the traffic flow on that main road down at that junction.
Again, we could have compared to your comment.
So that's what I would have liked to have seen when it comes down.
But when we talk about it later, have you got any of that data?
Okay, thank you.
And no, no specific data in that regard.
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 0:13:56
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:13:58
It's more simply that the application results from an increase in demand.
So it follows applications at other crematoriums within Buckinghamshire and
nationally.
There is just an increase in the rise of the need for services.
And so the hours change reflects that.
but we don't have data specifically in relation to that or intensification.
Sure, if you allow me.
I appreciate that, but the comment is made that it's increasing,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:14:20
so it would have been nice to have seen that as evidence to any...
But I also noticed that the parish council and ward members
have commented on them, but thank you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Hussain.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:14:32
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:14:37
Mr Chair, my question was along with Councillor Gomes' idea,
which is if we're increasing the time, have we any idea
of what the increased traffic use would be
and what the increase, whether it be more intense
or what is there now, if we just spread over more hours.
And normally a traffic survey of some type is called for,
but if that has been done, I just,
my question is a very similar thing.
Do we have any idea what the increased usage is
and where the concentration of traffic would be?
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:15:14
So in terms of the increase in hours, it's not saying that almost it has to then be throughout the entire day that the services are spread.
So it might be that some people select more services in the morning or perhaps some in the afternoon.
But the highways team reviewed the proposal and given the existing arrangements on site,
the fact there haven't been any traffic issues in relation to proposed use, which has been ongoing for a number of years.
highways didn't require any further data in that regard in this instance.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:15:42
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:15:46
Thank you. Councillor Pohl. Thank you Chairman. I too am interested in the
traffic modelling and I'm disappointed that there isn't any. I would just like
to understand that. I realise it may not have a bearing on the application but it
I would like to know how long after five o 'clock, so if the site closes at five,
would it be before traffickers exited the site?
Did the gates close at five o 'clock so the last service is at four?
Or I see you shaking your head.
No, so in terms of the specific wording of the condition,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:16:23
it says that the funeral service scheduled to come, they must like commence by,
They must not commence before 9 a .m. and they must not commence after 5 p .m.
So as long as services commence by 5 p .m.
They may run shortly after a 5 p .m. start time.
But in terms of then exiting the site, it's a case of as and
when services finish, traffic will flow out of that site.
Generally, services don't last more than about half an hour.
So come between half past five and six o 'clock.
Obviously, staff would need to then wrap up and exit the site.
So it's a case of not necessarily a mass exit of cars, but it will be a flow of cars out from sort of 5 .30 to 6 p .m
Thank you Chairman. Yeah, I think half an hour is a little optimistic
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:17:09
More like 45 minutes, but you're saying that a service could begin at 5 to 5
Finish at 20 to 6 and then you know, however having said that I was at the original
Application in 2014 I sat in as a
a councillor but a member of the public.
I wasn't on that committee.
And a lot of concern was raised about traffic.
I do visit Canand Lane a lot
and I don't think I have ever seen any traffic.
So whilst I say I would like to see the modelling,
I think that would have been courteous to us.
I haven't seen a problem with it thus far.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Sertory.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:17:54
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:17:58
Clearly it's got a very long planning history dating back to 2015, which predates this Council by some years.
And on the 2014 application, I'm presuming that that application would have presumably had a support and traffic modelling.
I note that Comet has made my valued colleague that doesn't seem to be any issues there.
And it mentions in the application adherence to the MPPF policies on growth.
I'd like a little explanation around how this links to that, the aspirations of MPPF 2024 to deal with growth and development,
because it mentions it.
So there will be a connexion between the aspirations
of the way we would presumably consider this application
against that legislation.
Thank you.
So in terms of achieving the overall aim
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:19:04
of sustainable development, as set out in the Office of Report
and the presentation that Nina kindly just gave,
it's not identified there's any conflict
with the overall aspiration to achieve sustainable development
as a result of the proposal.
but indeed by virtue of increasing the hours and accommodating the need for more funeral services,
there is a level of business growth associated with that in terms of the additional hours of operation.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:19:35
Noting the amount of growth we're going to have and whatever,
do we feel that the changes and improvements which are going to be sustainable for the long term
and we won't be returning to this again in four to five years because of the
sadly the increased use of it through the increased part of the population
growth and obviously this is dealing with the loss of that growth but we're
happy that this would sustain us for quite a long time whether it should have
in more robust, more detailed to account for that obvious growth
which is mentioned in the MPPF.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:20:20
So we can't predict what's going to be needed in the future,
but rather we've got to assess the application proposal that is
before us today.
And so for today, we are content as officers
that the proposal would not have an adverse impact
and hence recommending it for approval.
If in due course the applicant wanted to come back
and seek to vary the hours further,
Again, the application would need to come via the committee for assessment at that time.
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:20:47
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:20:51
I'm reminded that quite a lot of people in the audience are waiting for their applications,
and this is merely a formality because it's ourselves that have put the application in.
I've had the misfortune of going to rather more cremations recently than I should, and
I just really question and show my age
of whether you're cremating Eleanor Rigby or George Best.
That's what causes the traffic.
If you've got a lot of, a famous person,
you can fill the whole town with people,
as we saw before, I think in Amershon recently.
So can we move to the decision,
because there are no objections here,
and it's already quite straightforward.
The likelihood of there being any changes, I'd say,
would be to ask for another chapel,
probably in five or 10 years' time.
And at that time, then, perhaps the traffic
might be increased dramatically.
But on average, cremations normally take half an hour,
and people are moved in and moved out quite swiftly.
So that's just sharing my experience.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:21:47
Okay, so that's... we have a proposal from Councillor Harris,
seconded by Councillor Gregory Smith.
Were there more points of... were there more...
Was there any more points of...
Technical questions.
No technical questions.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:22:09
Chairman, I was only going to point out that we were on technical questions, not on debate or decision,
contrary to what Councillor Harris said. I think we should stick to the formal process.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:22:18
Okay, do we have any further points, technical points?
No? Okay, therefore I'll move the application.
Sorry, Chair. Yes, Councillor O 'Connell. Sorry to break, just a technical one just for clarification.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:22:36
As Councillor Pole brought something up, he was, back in the day of 2014, he saw
that application. Can you just remind me in that first application when the times
were put in and the traffic flow movement was done, there was a suggestion
of having traffic lights at that junction.
Sorry? Due to the issue? No? Okay, I'll accept that. Thank you, I just wanted to bring it
to the floor. Pass. I'm going to be honest on that point,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:23:15
but insofar as the HI -RIS team have reviewed the current proposal and haven't said that
any further mitigation or anything is required, so apologies, I don't have the answer on that.
I appreciate that. I just want to bring it to your attention.
Thank you.
Any more further technical points?
Councillor Stutchbury? No?
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:23:31
Okay.
I'll now open the application for debate.
Who would like to speak, please?
Councillor Stutchbury?
Without, let's say, without labouring the point,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:23:56
I think we've had a good inquiry of the technical matters
around this application,
which the officers have given sufficient answers.
There wasn't too much disquiet about the application.
I'd be very content to formally propose
that we would agree this application in line with the officers recommendation.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:24:27
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:24:32
Thank you. Councillor Gibbons. I know that it has been said that there weren't, that the
traffic didn't cause that much problems but I'm still a little bit concerned
about sort of, especially in the evening, sort of bleeding to the rush hour.
I mean, it's really charged that the opening times could be tweaked a bit, like 9 .30 to 4 .30 rather than 9 .00 to 5 .00.
Councillor Gibbons, I'm conscious that the microphone was a little bit away from you and that your iPad was blocking.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:24:59
So, for the benefit of people listening on webcast, could you please ask that again, please?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:25:07
Okay, I'm just wondering whether, because I'm a bit concerned that the movement of the
traffic, which can be quite slow obviously to sort of show respect, it does bleed into
both rush hour in the morning and the afternoon.
Would it be possible to tweak the times a bit to say 9 .30 to 4 .30?
So in terms of the application proposal for us, the proposal is for the hours to be from
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:25:33
9 a .m. till 5 p .m. in terms of there being a justificational reason as to why
it shouldn't be those hours we have no statutory consortee objecting on the
basis of the proposed hours nor any other consortee objecting on that basis
and whilst I appreciate your point as officers we are content with the hours
put forwards in terms of recommendation we've made so it would be for you to
make an alternative proposal Councillor Gibbon if you weren't satisfied with
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:26:06
those hours. Thank you. Councillor Gomm and then Councillor Huxley please. Thank
you Chairman. I'll be quick because I understand what people do when I shift on
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:26:12
I get that. So it's quite an interesting to understand why just an hour here
and there because it's renowned that that main road despite what Councillor
Poul says is quiet but it's busy on that road down the bottom it is busy you know
let's get straight, Holker, sorry,
yeah, up the road at Ralsham and in Bearden.
I spent an absolute fortune on traffic carbon,
et cetera, down there.
So to say that there's not an issue,
but you're gonna be surprised at what I'm about to say.
So I'm just curious why just an hour,
because it is gonna increase the traffic flow down there.
It does add up, but I will be supporting the application
because there's industrial units down there.
They're in and out there all the time.
So for a little bit of addition like this,
it will have an effect but won't have an effect.
So I move that we just go for a vote.
Councillor Huxley.
Thank you, Chairman.
Just like to say that I'll,
can I second the proposal, please?
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:27:19
Thank you.
So we have a proposal from Councillor Stutchbury.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:27:24
Yes, seconded by Councillor Huxley. Yes, yeah and the recommendation is to approve the application
in accordance with the officer's report. All in favour?
That's unanimous, Chairman. The application is approved. Thank you.

5 PL/25/5428/FA - 1 The Green, Hulcott, Buckinghamshire HP22 5AX

We now move to Item 5, Application No. PL Oblique 25 -5428 Oblique FA at page 19 of the
Agenda Pack. With those speaking on this application today, please respond after I call your name
to indicate you are in attendance. Please ensure that your verbal representation to
the committee relates to the relevant planning conditions regarding the planning application
being considered and do not include any personal comments. Each public speaker will be called
to speak and will come to sit at the public speaking table after members have asked any
points of clarification, please return to your seat. So we have Councillor Julie Ward.
Thank you. Mr Ian Mills. Thank you. Mr Cooper. Thank you. I will now call on Case Officer
Nina Hewitt -Jones to introduce the report
on the application.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
I'm gonna run through the presentations
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 0:29:25
for the two applications at number one, the Green Holdcott.
I'm gonna provide presentations one after the other,
if that's okay, so that members can be aware
of both application proposals submitted
at this site concurrently.
If members could please keep in mind
that each application is to be assessed on its own merits
and should be aware of the officer recommendation for each
of the applications as set out within section eight
of each of the committee reports.
The first application seeks full planning permission
for the erection of a proposed garage and store.
The application has been referred
to the planning committee because it was subject
to a two -member calling by councillors for the ward,
Councillor Julie Ward and Councillor Catherine Gibbon.
Should the officer recommendation be one of refusal?
In accordance with the council's constitution,
such planning applications must be determined
at the relevant area planning committee.
The application is located on the green whole cot
and relates to a one and a half storey semi -detached dwelling
with set within substantial grounds.
The dwelling is located on the northwest side of the green
within the village of Holcott.
The property is set back within its plot
away from the highway and there are a number
of outbuildings to the rear of the site.
To the north of the site is undeveloped land,
to the east are residential dwellings
and to the south is the green,
to the west is further undeveloped land.
The property subject to this application
is deemed to be a non -designated heritage asset.
The application site lies within the conservation area
and is within the setting
of nearby designated heritage assets,
grade two and grade two star listed buildings.
It's also within a red impact zone for great crested newts.
The garage and store would create two off street car parking
spaces for the dwelling and comprises a rectangular plan
form with a dual pitch roof.
Externally, the building would be constructed
of dark timber board cladding to the walls and a slate roof.
The existing outbuildings to the rear of the dwelling
are constructed of a variety of materials
including timber board cladding.
As such, the proposed materials of construction
are not objectionable.
However, the garage is a very large structure
comprising two bays and an internal store.
with a pitched roof and eaves height of 2 .5 metres
and an overall height of six metres.
Whilst it's acknowledged that the proposed store
would have a lower roof height than the host dwelling,
which has an eaves height of 4 .5 metres
and a total height of 8 .6,
it would not appear as a small structure,
subordinate to the host dwelling,
either spatially or visually.
The garage would be sited forward
of the principal elevation of the dwelling house adjacent to the front boundary of the
site and to the east of the existing dwelling.
When garages are inappropriately located, they can over -dominate and appear visually
prominent.
In this instance, due to the siting size and scale of the garage, which would increase
the amount of built form within the site and spread of such, including the additional hard
as you can see on the slide.
This would result in an unduly urbanising form
of development and would extend the residential development
into the open field.
This spread of built development form
beyond the grouping of the existing buildings on site
would result in the proposed garage,
which is already considered to be large,
encroaching into the open countryside
to the detriment of the character of the area.
The separation distance between the application site
and the neighbouring dwellings is such
that there would not be any negative impact on amenity.
In summary, the proposed development by way
of its siting and scale is not considered to be appropriate
and would fail to respect
or complement the physical characteristics
of the site or its surroundings.
As such, the proposal would result
in an unduly urbanising form of development,
which would be detrimental to the character and appearance
of the site and the wider landscape.
The site lies within flood zone one.
However, the application site exceeds one hectare.
As such in the absence of a site specific
flood risk assessment,
the application fails to appropriately address
the impact of the proposal in relation to flood risk.
And as such, this forms a reason for refusal
as outlined in section A of the officer report,
of the officer report.
Whilst the application has been submitted
as a householder application,
due to the nature of the agricultural land
that the proposed garage would be located on,
outside of the existing residential curtledge
of the dwelling house,
undertaking operational development
as such as building a garage on hard standing on this land,
triggers mandatory biodiversity net gain.
In addition, upon a visit to the site,
it was noted that the hedgerow to be partly removed
to provide access is considered to positively contribute
towards the rural character of the road
and visual amenity of the area.
Hence the loss of or damage to or harm contained
to the continued wellbeing of these features
would be considered detrimental
to the character of the area.
Furthermore, replacement planting would be required
where any features are to be lost.
No biodiversity net gain information has been provided
in support of this application.
Hence, it is not possible for the local planning authority
to determine the extent of the ecological impact,
nor assess how the development would achieve the statutory 10 %
biodiversity net gain.
As such, this forms a reason for refusal as outlined
in section eight of the officer's report.
Thank you.
There are a number of listed buildings
within the vicinity of the site,
and the site is also located
within the Holcock Conservation Area.
The grade two listed buildings are shown in red on this map,
with the church, which is in blue,
as a grade two star listed building.
The application property
is also a non -designated heritage asset,
as is number two, the green, and the additional,
the adjacent pair of semi -detached dwellings
at number three and four,
with the non -designated heritage assets shown
by the blue house icons on the right -hand side plan.
Following consultation with the Heritage Officer,
concerns were raised regarding the impact
of the proposed garage to the conservation area
and the nearby designated
and non -designated heritage assets.
The proposed garage is to be positioned in an open field adjacent to the applicant's building.
Whilst access is currently gained via a private drive from the road, which will remain unchanged,
further hard standing surrounding the garage is proposed.
The garage would be partially screened by hedgerow from views outside of the conservation area.
However, current screening is a changeable feature
dependent on the seasons
and the roof of the proposed garage would be visible
from the street scene regardless.
Introducing a new structure
in what is currently an open field.
Most garages within the conservation area
are either attached or sighted very close
to the host buildings.
However, in this instance,
the garage is sighted away from the dwelling
and appears somewhat disjointed.
The built form with associated hard standing would encroach into the open field which would
begin to erode the rural setting of the conservation area.
There are currently outbuildings to the rear of the plot and there has been no justification
provided as to why that location could not be utilised.
In terms of scale, the garage appears disproportionately large compared to that of the adjacent building
and those in the surrounding area.
There are a number of listed buildings
within the vicinity of the site.
Given the proximity between the application site
and the proposed development and these listed buildings,
it is considered that the proposed development
by virtue of its inappropriate design, scale, and siting,
appearing overly dominant and prominent,
would detract from the setting
of the nearby listed buildings.
The proposal would therefore result
in a less than substantial harm
to the setting of the nearby listed buildings.
The development would also fail to preserve
or enhance the conservation area
and would negatively impact upon the setting
of the non -designated heritage assets.
The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal
on this basis as set out within the reasons for refusal
in section eight of the committee report.
Moving to the site photos,
you will see these photos show the front elevation
of the dwelling, the area to the front of the dwelling to the left
where the proposed garage and access will be located,
and the view looking south from where the dwelling to the heart
of the conservation area and list of buildings.
These photos provide a closer view of the application dwelling
and the neighbouring non -designated heritage assets
and also shows the existing garage and some
of the existing outbuildings at the rear.
These photos show the site from the green to the front
of the dwelling and the delineation
of the proposed site for the garage.
And here we can see the field in which the garage,
the proposed garage would be located.
And these photos show the existing outbuildings
and provide a view from them towards the area
where the garage would be located.
To conclude, the view of officers is that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The officer recommendation therefore is one of refusal for the four reasons set out in section 8 of the planning committee report.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:40:20
Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Nina. Due to a technical matter, I'm going to adjourn
this meeting for five minutes. Can I just caution all members not to discuss this application
outside of this chamber. We'll resume in five minutes. Thank you.

5 PL/25/5428/FA - 1 The Green, Hulcott, Buckinghamshire HP22 5AX

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:40:45
Come back ladies and gentlemen. Over to Councillor Gibbon please.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:40:55
I apologise Chairman, I should have said at the start of the meeting that even though I
called this application in because I believe it required further investigation, I have
arrived completely open -minded with no predetermined view about it.
Sorry, can you please say that again into the microphone so that we're all clear on
this application, how it came here today?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:41:22
Why is this application part of this committee today?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:41:31
Oh yes, both myself and Councillor Ward called in this application because we felt it needed
further investigation, but I have arrived at this with a open mind and no predetermined
view whatsoever.
Thank you, Councillor Gibbon.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:41:47
We're going to slightly change the agenda at the moment.
We're now going to take the presentation on the second application on this address.
So, I will now call on the Case Officer, Nina Hewitt -Jones, to introduce the report on application
PL, Oblique 25, Oblique 5427, Oblique FA.
Thank you, Chair.
Moving on to the second planning application for this address.
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 0:42:22
This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing single -storey side extension and the erection of a new two -storey side extension incorporating a linking element together with the removal of the existing outbuildings.
As we've just heard, the application is referred to committee because it was subject to a two -member call -in by Councillor Julie Ward and Councillor Gibbon.
should the officer's recommendation be one of refusal.
In accordance with the council's constitution,
such planning applications must therefore be determined
by the relevant area planning committee.
The property consists of two bedrooms,
sitting room, dining room, kitchen, study, store,
bathroom and WC.
The property benefits from both a front and a rear garden
and off street parking via an existing garage,
which is situated to the rear of the dwelling.
As highlighted to members already,
the application dwelling is deemed
to be a non -designated heritage asset.
The application site lies within the Holcock Conservation Area
and is within the setting
of nearby designated heritage assets, which are Grade 2
and Grade 2 star listed buildings.
It's also within the Red Impact Zone for great crested nudes.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition
of the existing single -storey side extension and erection
of a new two -storey side extension incorporating a linked element together with the removal
of existing outbuildings.
The proposed two -storey extension would measure 13 .49 metres in depth with a width of 7 .3
metres and an overall height of 8 .3 metres and an eaves of 4 .45.
The proposed extension would be constructed of matching materials to the host dwelling.
As part of the proposed development, the existing outbuildings to the rear
of the dwelling are proposed for demolition.
These buildings are not considered to be of any particular merit,
and as such there are no objections raised to their removal.
The existing single -storey side extension to the dwelling house would also be removed,
with the footprint of the single -storey element to be demolished indicated
in pale blue on the proposed floor plan.
The existing dwelling consists of two bedrooms, a study,
dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and WWC.
Following the proposed extension, the dwelling would consist
of a sitting room, study, wet room, a ground floor bedroom,
utility room, kitchen, diner, dining room at ground floor level,
and four server bedrooms, two en suite,
and one of which also includes a dressing room,
and a family bathroom at the first floor level.
There are no concerns regarding the negative impact
to neighbouring amenity as a result of the proposed extension.
The proposed two -storey extension would be of a significant scale and by virtue of its design
and massing would form a bulky addition to the modest dwelling, failing to appear as subservient
or subordinate addition but rather swamp the host dwelling house.
The proposed extension would double the footprint of the existing property
and would completely alter the architectural form of the dwelling.
The proposal would introduce a linking element between the existing house and the extension,
which would have a lower roof than the existing dwelling,
and the bulk of the two -storey extension, which would appear in Congress,
and lead to a terracing impact, which would fundamentally alter the character of the semi -detached property to which it would be attached.
The proposed development by way of its significant scale and design would be a bulky and incongruous form of development which would overwhelm the original form of the dwelling house and would fail to respect or complement the physical characteristics of the original dwelling house or its surroundings.
As such, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application property, the site and the surrounding area.
Whilst the application outlines that some additional
accommodation is required to enable the provision
of facilities on the ground floor,
such to accommodate a disabled child,
no detailed justification has been provided
for an extension of the scale proposed.
As such, whilst the circumstances of the applicant
have been taken into account as material consideration,
these do not indicate that a decision should be made
other than in accordance with the development plan.
Turning to parking, the existing dwelling has two bedrooms.
As a result of the proposed extensions,
the number of bedrooms within the dwelling
would increase to five.
In accordance with the parking standards in the local plan,
a five bedroom dwelling would be expected to provide
three and a half car parking spaces.
It's felt that this number of car parking spaces
can be achieved within the residential
curtage of the dwelling,
with or without the scheme proposed
on the concurrent planning application for a garage.
The site, as we said before, lies within flood zone one.
However, being excessive of one hectare,
as such in the absence of a site specific
flood risk assessment, the application fails
to appropriately assess the impact of the proposal
in relation to flood risk.
And as such, that forms a reason for refusal
as outlined in section eight of the officer report.
The council's ecology team have been consulted on the proposal and have advised that the existing building is of a style that could have features to be used by roosting bats.
And the wider landscape will be commuting and foraging within the area.
Bats are a protected species.
And a preliminary roost assessment has been requested
by the ecology team in order to determine the full impact
of the proposal on bats and nesting birds.
In the absence of information pertaining to the impact
of the proposed development upon bats and nesting birds,
officers consider that this development has the potential
to result in unacceptable loss of or damage to
or threaten the continued well -being
of that protected species.
And as such, this forms a reason for refusal as outlined
in section eight of the report.
Turning to the heritage impact, as highlighted
to members already, there are a number of listed buildings
within the vicinity of the site, and the site is also located
within the conservation area.
The application property is a non -designated heritage asset.
as is number two, the green,
and the adjacent pair of semi -detached dwellings
at number three and four, as you can see on this map.
Following consultation with the Heritage Officer,
concerns were raised regarding the impact
of the proposed extension on the conservation area
and the nearby designated and non -designated heritage assets.
The Heritage team has highlighted that the form
and principal elevations
of the application building remain relatively unaltered,
and as such the dwelling at present retains its traditional character and appearance.
However, the removal of the existing single -storey side extension and
replacement with an additional mass and sprawling effect as a result of the
proposed two -storey extension would erode the readability of the non -designated
heritage asset and detract from its original form. The proposed footprint
does not respect the scale and proportions of the original dwelling and
and appears disproportionately large, lacking subordinates and overwhelming the original form,
thereby negatively impacting the significance of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties which are NDHA's.
The large two -storey extension would be visually prominent from the central green,
which is enclosed with historic buildings and relatively untouched by modern development,
and would therefore be detrimental to the overall appearance and significance of the conservation
area. The level of harm to the significance of the conservation area would be less than
substantial. The proposed dwelling also appears incongruous, sitting awkwardly in a stark
contrast to the original form. The proposed extension appears as a bulky addition which
would not respect the original form of the building and the design of the existing is
unsympathetic to the overall character of the building and does not preserve the character
or appearance of the dwelling house
as a non -designated heritage asset.
As such, the proposal distracts from the architecture
and special interest of the host dwelling
and the overall character and appearance of the street scene.
And as such, this forms a reason for refusal as outlined
in section eight of the committee report.
Here are a series of site photographs.
These photographs show the front elevation of the dwelling
and the view towards the green and the heart
of the conservation area.
These photos provide a closer look
of the side of the dwelling
where the proposed extension would be located
following the demolition of the existing
single storey element that you can see here.
These photos show the rear of the dwelling
and some outbuildings which are to be demolished.
They're a little bit dark, those photos,
But that was the rear and the sides of the dwelling house.
The slide, this slide is a plan of the proposals submitted
under both applications.
You can see the proposed garage building and the extension.
This is to give members an awareness
of the total development proposed
under the two schemes being presented to you today.
To conclude, the view of officers is that the adverse impact
of granting planning permission would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The officer recommendation, therefore, is one of refusal
for the four reasons set out in section eight
of the planning committee report.
I shall now hand you back to the chairman for members
to consider first the garage application, which,
and then followed by this application,
which seeks permission for the demolition of the existing single -storey side extension and erection
of the new two -storey side extension incorporating the linked element together with the removal of
the outbuildings. Thank you chair. Thank you Nina. I will now call on Councillor Julie Ward,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:53:13
a local ward member. Can you please come to the table and once the timer starts, because
we're hearing two applications at once. You will have six minutes. Please remain
in your seat after you speak for any points of clarification.
Councillor please. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:53:35
Turn your microphone on please. Thank you. Thank you Chairman. The village of Hulka is
tucked away pretty and unique. It is a hidden gem and the uniqueness is reflected in all
of the buildings there.
There is a care home.
There is a historic church, modern homes,
a mixture of older and older homes from different periods
and of different design.
There are agricultural building conversions.
And there's even a new eco home, which
is directly opposite the proposal
that we're looking at today.
There's also a variety of different outbuildings.
And just a few doors along from today's proposal,
directly facing the green, there was a large garage of two floors, or as it appears, as there is a window above it.
I will say that historically the site where the garage here will be located has actually been used as a residential garden with play equipment,
which I believe is visible on one of the overhead satellite shots that appeared in the officer's presentation.
And it was obvious to us eight years ago when as a committee we visited
For the site visit on the barn which appears to the left of the red line
The garage is proposed to be built in
identical
materials to that barn it was noted by the officer on that site visit that the
agricultural field that is constantly referred to was in use as a residential garden and its use as a
residential garden extends probably beyond 10 years.
And you can actually see from that image the area that leads down to the house
where the play equipment and the basketball was sighted.
In terms of how the community views this application,
there has been a lot of support for keeping the family in the village and
very little opposition to the extension of the home.
Whether the garage is in the correct position or not, that is a matter for the committee to decide today to use their judgement on.
Some of the things that I listened to within the officer's presentation, such as the description of the agricultural field, which we know has been used as a garden for a long time,
I feel that I must take issue with.
The House itself is actually very tucked away.
And people that know Holcote, and I know that there are people here that have been on this committee,
and others for a very long time, will know that area.
As you approach from Cainend Lane, you almost have to look behind you to see it from that vista.
But again, there are other vistas from the green as well.
So again, it's something that the committee may take a subjective view on.
In terms of whether this is detrimental to the property, to the sites, to the surrounding area,
I would suggest that it probably is not detrimental.
There is no defined street scene,
there is no defined character of the area, other than the fact that it is eclectic,
it is historic, and it is very quaint.
I'm sure that given the opportunity that the applicants could overcome issues by condition
for things perhaps like bat boxes, screening, planting, nesting boxes, but that could be
something that the committee decides to deal with and determine by permission, by condition.
It's not insurmountable.
We have Kingsbrook immediately abutting this area, which is almost an exemplar example
of how development can coexist alongside ecology.
So there are things that we can look at there.
So in conclusion, I would say that I did call this
application in today because I do think that it would
benefit from the determination of a committee
and the deliberation of a committee of members
that have served some for a very long time
and know the area very well.
and I don't consider that it would be unduly urbanising.
Certainly not in something that immediately reflects
an already consented permission as in the barn
that is built on what was the open field
directly opposite it.
But in any event, I'm happy to sit here today
and answer any of your questions.
And if you'd like me to expand on any of the points
that I've made I'm very happy to. Thank You councillor. Points of clarification
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:58:53
keep your hands up please.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:59:17
Councillor Hoxie. Thank you Chairman. One thing that's bugged
me Councillor is the where the proposed garage and storeys is going to be
erected which is is a reasonable distance has been pointed out by the
officer from from the the house itself why can't the same site be used if the
outbuildings are going to be demolished why that site or that the same site used
for the proposed garage and store.
Please.
Thank you, Councillor.
Public Speakers - 0:59:55
And that's probably a question that would be well directed
perhaps towards the architect and the applicant,
but my understanding from speaking to them is,
and which is why I believe one of the benefits
of looking at the two applications together
is how it relates to the need for disabled access.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor O 'Gone, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:00:24
Appreciate it.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:00:28
Like you say, what a quaint little gem that we have out there in the Buckinghamshire area
and it's well looked after by all that live there.
Could you just expand on a few things, please?
You mentioned all the properties there quite varied.
We got a new eco house, et cetera.
new houses, like you said as well,
there's the care home that's been there for days stopped.
But so it's quite rare.
If you could expand on that slightly also,
when we look to the left,
you mentioned the barn that's there,
that wasn't there some years ago,
which is in line where the proposed application
is gonna go, but near to the property.
So, and then we keep getting referred to as this land being,
Is it agricultural land or is it private land is a bit irrelevant when it goes down to it?
but if this is where I come back to technical if you won't mind, but I'm just gonna so
This building from the design looks like a barn that's gonna go up there
But I believe that I've come back to technical that one
But could you expand on more of the properties we because we've seen no photos of the properties in that area
You know them I do know them, but if you could expand on that so the rest of committee can understand a bit, please
Public Speakers - 1:01:48
So I'm not an architectural expert, but we've got an old house that's converted now into a care home.
Immediately next to the care home is a modern home.
As you go around behind the modern home, there are some what look like kind of maybe 60s looking bungalow type structures.
You've got some very quirky historical buildings as you move around the green.
There's also another modern building around the green,
which sits directly alongside cobwebs, which is an incredibly old building.
I think it's called Oakwood House and Cobwebs.
They sit directly side by side.
One is modern, one is probably about the oldest building that you've got on that green,
and they're direct neighbours.
As you continue around along the stretch of cottages
where this particular property is, they are all extended.
Three doors down, there is a large detached garage
with what looks like a room above it.
If you continue around the bend, you've got the,
I call it a barn, but it's actually an eco house.
It's a brand new eco house.
If you go around to the back of some of these, there are converted agricultural buildings,
barn conversions, other agricultural conversions.
There is a, you know, there's a real different selection of properties.
Yeah, even as you can see, I think you can see a swimming pool up there on the overhead of the plan there.
It's beautiful, but it's very diverse in its design.
Have I covered all of your, did I miss anything?
I could just quickly come back please Chairman, that applies to me.
Of course, very kind sir.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:03:43
So that's lovely that you explained to us, maybe a site visit would have helped possibly.
But also you mentioned about these properties and what's going on.
There's, and you mentioned Kingsbrook, um, which is,
can you explain roughly where that is to the rest of my colleagues?
And also, I think you alluded to slightly,
was all the solar farm accumulation in that area?
So yeah, there is, um, if you, you know, if you cast your net wider,
Public Speakers - 1:04:09
literally just down the road where it sort of borders, um,
Bearden there's a driving range, there's a bar, there's a wedding venue.
It then goes across to Kings Brook, which is a large new build development
Two and a half thousand houses
Leave its Barrett's flagship development where they have an art
There's an RSPB reserve that's going to be bordering Kings Brook and going across into Holcott
In fact Holcott Parish Council have joined the stakeholder group with Barrett David Wilson homes
There is an employment area.
There will be big industrial units.
And yes, there is a solar farm as well
that's going on to some of the agricultural land.
But that is really spreading the net far out to, if you like,
give you an idea of what the wider area is.
If we focus on Holcott as a village itself,
even focusing on Holcott as a village itself,
It is beautiful, it is eclectic, it is historical in so many ways, but it is also incredibly diverse in terms of its architectural style.
And there is no real street scene. It is around the village green, your eye could be turned by any distinctive property.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Smith, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:05:49
I'm going to throw in just a few kind of unrelated questions, if that's okay.
Starting off really with there's been a bit of mention about this is about adapting a
property to enable a family to continue living there because of a child or a person with
a disability.
And if you could elaborate a little bit on that and why this structure is required in
order to facilitate that.
We've also mentioned a bit about the barn at the back.
Presumably that was granted under agricultural rules
because it's an agricultural piece of land.
If you know any of that, that would be really helpful at this
stage, otherwise I'll come back at technical.
And the final bit is that I understand that this is
attached to some land that was put forward under the emerging
local plan.
Not sure how relevant that is in terms of today's decision, but but it was deemed as unacceptable
Under the emerging local plan. I just wonder what your knowledge is of why that would be unacceptable for development
Thank You councillor
Public Speakers - 1:06:59
Can try remember all of your questions first of all when you say the the barn at the back you mean when I refer to
It as the barn so if you look to the plan it is on the left of the red line
It was never a barn, it was a complete, it looks like a barn, I will say it is, it blends with the...
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:07:25
Apologies, I completely misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the outbuildings at the back of the house, but they're not new.
Public Speakers - 1:07:32
They're not new and I understand that they will be removed as a result and the site tidied up as a result of this proposal.
I think the outbuildings we saw look like sheds and greenhouses, things like that.
When I call it a barn, the barn, it's the new build structure,
which is on the other side of the red line that we granted.
I think it was about eight years ago when I was on the site visit for that as local member.
So, yes, my understanding is that the family have,
The family have in one way or another lived at that property for a long time.
It was the grandparents property before.
And there is a very disabled child within the family.
And that the adaptations including as was mentioned the ground floor bedroom,
wet room are a necessity for that child to be able to live and remain with family.
and that the outbuildings, as a part of that child's disability,
they have an awful lot of equipment as well that are required for daily living for that child's life.
And that's why the garage and the storage is an important part of the application.
Did I miss anything?
Oh, you asked about the local plan.
I'm not aware that any part of that was included in,
is offered within Call for Sight.
Yeah, we can come back to that in technical.
No, I apologise.
I was struggling to get a sense about the adaption
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:09:11
of the building for a person with disabilities
when it seems from the plans that it's,
I'll look at the plans rather than get you to explain them. It just doesn't seem as if it's more accessible given the layout of the plan.
But I'll come back to that on technical.
So what I do know is that that's the reason there is a ground floor bedroom and wet room.
Public Speakers - 1:09:41
Thank you Councillor Stutchbury.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:09:46
Firstly, thank you, Councillor, for coming to speak on the application.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:09:49
I think it's very important that Councillors do.
I could try and hone down on the points.
You made a statement, which I listened to carefully,
around the necessity for the family to stay in the village
and the expression which we've got your word for,
and I count your word strongly in this,
that there was no real objection to people in the village saying that there was no rapid objection
to them because they had understanding of, I'm presuming, the child's disabilities and the need
for them to stay in the house. I think it'd be wrong to be tasked for the Pacifics around the
disabilities but it's a shame that I don't know them. It would help me in my consideration of how
this would go forward. I don't know if I'm limited to know that. It makes a difference in the way
that the application with a wet room,
my late wife was just saying I understand the logic
of having a wet room,
I understand that the necessity to adapt buildings.
Those points first, and I've got a second one after that.
If you can help me with that,
if you can't help me with any identification disability,
I take respect that because then the people
have right of privacy.
Councillor Stutry, what I would say is that
The applicant is here today and is registered to speak.
Public Speakers - 1:11:11
And I think that because obviously everybody's
personal information and their family is private to them,
I think that they would probably be the person best placed
to answer any specific questions
around their child's disability.
Second point on that.
You're a longstanding Councillor for years.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:11:37
Have you got any comments to make on the aspects of this acting
keeping with the DDA and the equalities act in respect
to the disability of the child?
Well, I don't claim to be an expert on that
Public Speakers - 1:11:53
by any stretch of the imagination.
In your knowledge, I would imagine it well exceeds mine.
But I do wonder sort of how, when
we think about the local plan and how the new local plan
comes forward and the provision for accessible properties,
I think that we need to realise that there is a growing,
not just because we have an ageing population,
but because we have, through medical advances,
we have children and young people that are living lives
and to ages that perhaps 50 years ago,
these young people would never have reached.
And to me, keeping families together is important.
and keeping families together in a community where they go back.
This will be the third generation where they've got roots
and they've got a support system around them is equally important as well.
Lastly, going back to the point you said about generation,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:12:58
and it's not a planning reason but it's something to understand the merits of the application.
you say about generational links and you said that the applicants are going to speak later,
maybe they'll answer that. Are those links linear within the village and maternally or
through marriage or are they just the fact that they've been fortunate enough to be able
to stay in the same place?
Public Speakers - 1:13:29
There's grandparents, parents, I don't want to expand too much because the family have also experienced a very tragic premature bereavement in their history as well.
There's grandparents, parents and grandchildren in terms of that lineage.
So when I say third generation, this would be the third generation of that family that would be living in that home
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:13:59
Thank You counsellors can I remind you that any points of clarification has to be addressed through the chairman, please
Counsellor Hussein
Mr. Chairman
And all my points I think have been quite rightly explored by other councillors
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:14:10
which is the fact that there's a mix of properties
you confirmed.
There are no kind of built form in the village
that you could say, in some villages, for example,
they have black and wood houses, and all of them
are black and wood, if you know what I mean.
There's no such uniformity in this village.
That's one thing you can confirm to me.
The one point that you made that wasn't made
in the presentation was the fact that this is not just
kind of greenfield agriculture land
where someone's grown wheat or barley or something,
you commented that it's actually used as a play area.
So it could be deemed to be brownfield
rather than a greenfield site.
I'd like your opinion on that.
And my last question is that the site itself
is quite a large site, it's one hectare.
So do you feel that the adaptation and the size of the properties to adapt for the family,
but it would fit well within the site as it is?
Thank you, Councillor Hussain.
Public Speakers - 1:15:29
Yes, I did say that there's certainly no uniformity in terms of the different properties.
There's also not particularly a uniformity in terms of how the settlement is laid out.
There is a beautiful village green with properties that surround it,
but you can also go down Cainend Lane and when you go up to Cainend Farm,
there are multiple residential dwellings of different appearances on Cainend Farm.
You've got the new eco build, you've got the Georgian farmhouse,
you've got converted agricultural buildings.
You can head out in the other direction towards the driving range and
there's modern bungalow type houses.
So although there's a green, there's also sort of
almost like offshoots of development in other places around that.
which don't quite appear on the picture there very much focuses on the green.
And yeah, they do exist side by side.
The example I gave was cobwebs sitting next to, it's called oak something house.
You've got what for all intents and purposes is a modern property
immediately next door to what is quite possibly one of the oldest looking properties on that green.
It is a large site and I don't think that the proposed extension is disproportionate when you look at the whole site.
But it's also tucked away. It is right on the corner.
So depending on what angle you approached and looked at it from,
there might be vistas where you wouldn't even barely notice it.
Thank you. Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:17:36
Chairman, I've lost the will to live. Can I, through you, invite members to stick to the rules and to concentrate their efforts on questions that relate directly to what the guest speaker has actually said,
and to avoid treating the guest speaker
as a planning consultant.
Frankly, this application is getting out of control
and I urge you to take control of the comments.
Thank you.
Councillor Cornell.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:18:10
I think that most of my questions have been asked,
but I'm just curious to know why you have to have,
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:18:14
I appreciate you've got a disabled child,
but surely just with the ground floor from what I saw of the plan that would be sufficient without putting this huge extension on the house.
Public Speakers - 1:18:33
Thank you, Councillor Cornell. The house is for a family, there's not just one child in the family.
But I think perhaps we do have the official planning consultant or agent and the family
member here today and they might be able to explain the rationale behind that a little
bit more.
I don't want to get out of control here.
Thank you.
Any further points of clarification?
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:19:00
Councillor Ward, thank you very much.
You may return to your seat.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I now call on Mr Mills and Mr Cooper, the agent and applicant.
Can you please come to the table, please?
Once the timer starts, please begin.
You will have six minutes shared.
We will have to find the house you can use each, Chair.
No.
Three minutes.
three minutes each.
Three minutes each or however you want to share
the six minutes.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:19:42
Good afternoon, thank you.
Mr. Messini, who owned April Cottage,
were popular and longstanding members
of the whole Cott community.
Both were active in the local councils,
Mrs. Messini with the local church,
and the charity supporting bereaved children.
It was always their wish that their home would stay in their family.
My wife, who was their daughter, died of cancer at the age of 31. Our daughter was three. In later years, Mr.
and Mrs. Mussini took to my new partner with the same love they welcomed me into their family years earlier.
They were especially smitten with her son, Tommy, who my daughter now calls her brother.
Tommy is 15, has a rare genetics condition, meaning he requires constant care and is confined to a wheelchair with limited communication skills.
The cottage needs modernising and upgrading.
The extension is being designed to be a family home
that's fully accessible for him.
Rooms have to be bigger and wider,
so his chair will turn and he can access each room
and therefore be part of the family
and included at all time.
Due to his current circumstances,
his current house cannot be his forever home.
This is designed to be that home.
We did at first seek a pre -app planning discussion.
and after that, with the advice of our architect, had reduced to what we believe is an acceptable size that mimics the cottage
and has an attractive look to it whilst maintaining the view of the innkeeper of the village.
In the final few weeks in the cottage where she died, Mrs. Messini was in pain and discomfort.
I showed her a picture of Tommy and for a few precious seconds, her smile lit up that room.
Without provision for him, this cannot be the family home that she would hope for us.
With no garage, the home is also of no use.
There are additional items that require storage and must be close enough to the house to be
practical.
As you've seen, the house sits in a large piece of land.
It is essentially a small cottage with a very large garden.
Someone has to mow that, and without a garage of a reasonable size, you cannot store the
necessary equipment.
I was very surprised from the presentation you saw, the pictures and the words referred
to us taking out part of the boundary for access.
That is completely untrue.
There is an existing gate in the hedge that we plan to use,
and I feel you should have been shown that as part
of that presentation, and I am deeply upset
by the fact you were not shown the proper information.
We will, of course, be planting additional trees
and taking any necessary conservation steps to help
with the area, and certainly putting the garage anywhere else
will be in line with sight of our neighbours.
Thank you chair, councillors. I believe we do meet the criteria of all safe
policies and as we've only got a brief time I need an hour and a half with a
presentation to actually probably bring you all on board. It does respond to the
character and setting of the area. This is level and not prominent. The proposal is
set within domestic Kurdish for the extension. Plenty of space around the
proposals does not require any removal of any trees, hedging or planting.
They are a consistent design in simple format, replicating the host building, height and scale, reflect the built form.
The other adjacent cottages have large extensions in our building, suppressor is set. In fact the photos you've been shown already are in
isolation. If you saw an overview of all four cottages, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
In response to the character,
It mimics the cottage and replicates the design traits.
A servient link, which now houses a new staircase,
accentuates the host building.
It's a very effective way to create the space
and accommodation the applicant seeks.
Materials will match.
There is no loss of privacy to neighbours.
It is subservient, yet reflects the host building.
The thought process is one.
The design guide we have, or the port to put out,
is one person's thought.
It's a guide, not cast in stone.
Injevalty of design should be encouraged. No harm occurs. I believe most buildings
in the village have been extended in some manner, some largely, some not,
including heritage assets. The only one extended in the village is the church. In
short, the extension is a considerable distance from any heritage assets, on
domestic garden area, subservient, meets the traits of the cottage, no impact on
neighbours, and I believe we meet the design criteria. For consistent decision,
and given what has been approved in the adjacent cottages,
we believe present to be set.
Respect to the post garage and the store.
Is set behind an existing mature tree and hedge line,
none will be removed.
The position being carefully considered.
Visible from the extent if we approved
with the house extension and the existing cottage,
we get a maintained clear surveillance
and enhanced security of the garage doors.
Its location allows for safe and easy ingress
to the property with more than ample area for vehicles
to turn so they can leave the site and afford motion.
If this garage instal was put alongside the cottage,
I'm sure your office would actually say, no,
it means a mass incongruous built form, more so
what they're saying now.
The garage instal provides a sense
of purity for vehicles, equipment, garden, furniture,
and large equipment as required by the disabled teenager that
cannot be stored in the dwelling.
Rural crime is on the increase.
this is a much needed addition. Materials will be clay roof tile to match, soft timber dark
stained boarding which will melt away and not a starker brickwork and it takes the form of an
agricultural rural barn. The site of which the garage is set on is being used domestically for
many years, well more than usual 10 -year time frame. There are a number of other properties
on K -N -N have also applied successive extensions of residential garden into agricultural fields.
Many dwellings have garages that are not a part of the original development. Most are visible to the
public domain, varying in sizing, some having rooms on the roof, particularly number two. Thank you very
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:25:56
much, your time is up. Thank you chair, thank you councillors. Thank you. Hands on, you're ahead of me.
Points of clarification.
Councillor Gormley, do you have your hand up?
I will do as you seem what I want to ask first.
Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:26:35
And if I could ask either of our guest speakers,
I'm a little disappointed myself in the plan
within the document pack.
It doesn't actually show the access to the proposed garage.
And I only saw the existing access gate
through Street View.
It's difficult to see from Google Earth.
So my question is, as that is grasped at the moment,
is the intention to metalize the access to that
with concrete or paving or tarmac or whatever?
Thank you, Councillor.
The existing access is widening for domestic car vehicles.
Public Speakers - 1:27:19
It has an existing track off the metal road.
If members were minded to accept these proposals,
the hard standing will be of a bog pave which basically is a gravel within a castellated sub -base
to stop gravel moving away, which will help facilitate drainage.
By putting there as an apposition, it allows also for easy access and manoeuvring within the site
So vehicles can go in and out in a forward motion,
which makes highway safety much more valuable.
And in respect of any loss of hedging or trees or anything,
there's none going to occur whatsoever.
I hope that answered your question.
Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you.
Councillor Gibbon, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:28:07
I just like you because you have to speak quite fast.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:28:12
I'd just like you to go over again the position of the garage because I know most of the emails
I've had about this application, people have been happy about the house, but they were
concerned about the position of the garage.
And I know you did mention why it had to be in that particular position and not close
to the house.
And the other thing I just wanted to clarify was that I believe you said the material is
to look a bit like a barn and I believe it's either very similar or identical to another
garage very very close by that's even larger.
I just wondered if you could clarify that.
Ian before you do I just say there are at least five other garages that are visible
from the village green.
Again you weren't shown any of those pictures of neighbouring properties.
Public Speakers - 1:28:57
There are at least five of those of which I have photographic evidence of.
I gather I can't show that but to confirm there are garages visible from the green far
more so than that on our plan.
To go on to the position councillor, we looked at various options.
If we would put a garage building behind the cottage where the existing outbuildings are
to be due to be demolished, the neighbours would complain.
And I think they would probably would have a reasonable argument to say not in that position.
We'd also mean we'd have a very, very long drive around the cottage and its extension
to get to it.
and also then have to provide parking and turning area, which would then erode even further the natural garden area behind the cottage.
In the position we have chosen, it is hidden by mature hedging and trees.
So when in full foliage, you won't see the pseudo barn, rural barn, which will become the carriage and store, you will not see it from the village green, it will be hidden away.
Also, in that position, we have natural surveillance and security.
So we have got a design guide for security by design, which we are supposed to be mindful
of in planning as well as in the second stage, which is building regulations.
To have surveillance from the existing cottage to the doors, and that means we are then having
always sight of any potential crime or criminality that may occur, particularly with rural crime
And I believe within the last couple of years,
there has been a lot of that, not just in Halkett,
but in the wider rural area.
So there are the reasons behind one to hide,
one to make it easy for accessibility
and give us plenty of area to turn and park.
And I think also the other argument
is the security of buildings and equipment, garden furniture,
lawnmowers, tomys, wheelchair, et cetera, et cetera.
And hopefully that, Councillor, answered your question.
Thank you.
The church has been broken into several times in recent months on that note.
Thank you. Councillor Harris.
Thank you chair. I just want to come back to the design of the house. Specifically what alterations
Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:31:07
are you making to make it more accessible? Because from the floor plan it's not entirely apparent.
Are there any fixtures or fittings, stainless steel, whatever in there that you could possibly
described to us just so you get a much better feel for how you're going to move around this property.
There's no stair that's required because you won't get Tommy up the stairs with the best
Public Speakers - 1:31:28
one in the world but there's certainly space downstairs to make the whole of the downstairs
accessible for him. As we mentioned earlier his chair itself is big, he's 15 now, he's unable to
walk for himself and therefore he is a big child at that and it does require a big chair. The
turning circle for that is quite a large area, not least he's able occasionally to do it himself,
not always, but it is something that he is learning to do, but it is a very large area to turn that absolutely.
And of course, the wet room is also absolutely necessary. He can't bathe himself.
He can't shower himself. And that is built into the downstairs area as well.
If I can also expand upon that, myself having had a nephew who, sadly no one knew of,
exactly the same sort of condition, but he had cerebral palsy on a wheelchair as he got bigger, became more difficult.
So in line with guidance, certainly within building regulation guidance,
the accessibility into the property meets legislation, so have wider doors,
and the front door will be slightly wider to allow better access in,
so you don't scrape your knuckles when helping.
Clenching area within the building itself, particularly the new part,
to allow for turning, but also, bearing in mind, is going to be used as a family.
So we need to create that aspect for the family to enjoy it and not be constrained.
The original design was larger at the Pre -App.
We constrained it down to what we believe, which my client and myself believe was acceptable,
and within the guidance of the design guide on what would normally be expected.
And given over 40 years' experience, a lot in this area, I do have, I think, very good success.
And certainly in areas like Hull, we've got the conservation, and obviously it's a non -heritage asset.
but within that realms have a lot of experience and I believe with my clients working to their
express wishes I think I've come up with a scheme which not only complements the host house but it
extenuates the fact with the subservient link it still contains its asset. If you compare that to
the other four cottages and exactly what's being built there I think you'll understand the
realisation that this is not actually over large in comparison to some of the others.
I think the final part on that, Councillor Harris, and any councillors around the table,
when we were putting this together, someone said to me, well, you've got a room for Tommy,
why has the other room got the wide doors?
Why is the access of those rooms?
I'd ask you this question, would you leave your child in a different room on a family
occasion at Christmas or at birthdays and expect them to stay in the room on their own?
And the answer is quite clear, no, isn't it?
Thank you.
Councillor Hussain.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:34:10
I don't think people realise the fact with a disabled child in a wheelchair how big that wheelchair is, especially for a teenager.
I must confess because I work in the area, I do know how big they are, how heavy they are.
And so if you can expand on that and why you need that space.
The other thing I wanted to ask was, you adapted from the design, you're keeping most of the original building frontage as is,
and you're building an infill as was described by the officer. That's correct.
And with the size of plot that there is there, can you tell us whether, sorry, maybe I need to ask the officer that question.
You also expanded on the fact that the materials and the design that you're going to be using are sympathetic to what they are, to the original building.
Can you expand on that please?
With regard to designing the building, go to materials.
Public Speakers - 1:35:10
Especially in the world, you never match 100%. That I guarantee.
but if accepted and approved we would go to the great lengths to ensure whoever
builds out contractor will look for materials and will probably have to have
a condition approved to ensure that they match within reasonable degree but it is
essential that we maintain the existing cottage hence the subservient link is
actually the staircase so by dropping that down that accentuates the fact that
we have a pair of cottages.
The other side, number two, has extensions
to the side and to the rear and the big double garage
as well as.
So that is a nice link.
It allows for the access to meet.
Current building regulations stand onto landing.
And because obviously we need the ground floor accommodation
for the disabled child and obviously a separate sitting
room, it makes sense to create all the additional space
upstairs, which will give then the master bedroom
and your daughter or the daughter
to have a bedroom, family bathroom, etc.
And obviously one for guests as well as.
So in that respect, the design, looking at the eclectic mix of the village,
so you do your analogy of the village, you also look and focus
in particular for the group of cottages.
And that is where you draw your characterization from.
So you need to mimic and ensure whatever you're putting there follows those design traits.
So it's not out of keeping out of character, but also have a view to what is the end game for that design?
Which is for family home and in terms of space allow yes, sorry
I think to what was the question cancer same regarding the wheelchair?
Yeah, how big for a teenager and electric wheelchair actually is
Having that image kind of normal wheelchair and I think you need to expand on that and plus the manoeuvrability that's required for it
Yeah, there's battery packs on that. They are large, they are heavy. The turning circle is vast.
It really is. And of course there are systems in place like pulleys and harnesses as well that
require to get from the wheelchair to the bed or to the sofa. So it is not a small space at all now.
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Carnell. Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to the garage again.
It's an enormous garage.
And I appreciate you've got to store a lawn mower,
excuse me, a lawn mower and a wheelchair,
but it's a huge garage which would eventually be turned
into another house, couldn't it?
That scenario, I think, would be conditioned out
on any approval granted.
And it is you, committee, if you decide to accept our proposal
and determine it in the affirmative,
you can condition it, that it could never ever be changed
of use without prior express permission in terms of planning.
In terms of large, well, if you get a modern house
on a modern estate, can you fit a standard car in it?
The answer is no.
You get in there, your car doors hit the garage walls.
It's designed, and I've done this many, many times.
In terms of houses, over 150 -odd houses
are designed from scratch.
They all have eight -foot -wide doors.
All have plenty of space in between.
and the store is not just for the additional equipment for the disabled
child but garden equipment, mowers, garden furniture all those sort of bits and
pieces need to be hidden out of the way so if you can put them out of the way
including cars you don't domesticate the area as much but also is the added
security factor particularly as we're seeing at the moment such high prevalence
of criminality. If I may Councillor Cornell sorry the car required to
Transport Tommy is not a small car, either, because it's adapted.
It is a bigger vehicle than a standard car.
May I come back, Chair?
Thank you very much.
I understand that, the disabled car and everything else.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:39:08
But surely, if you've got wheelchairs and things you want near the house,
then why not have them at the back of the house and a secure lockup?
I think if we started to put buildings at the back of the house,
the neighbours will be objecting.
And they have actually verbally said to my client
Public Speakers - 1:39:27
that they would not like to see any buildings go
at the back of the property whatsoever,
because it won't expose the view from their own gardens.
But also then, we would have a lot of access
right around the property to get to those rear buildings.
So that is the reason, the rationale
behind the design decision.
And I think also, if we would have a long driveway,
one of the costs goes up, obviously.
but it's it's I think and destroys the ambiance of the rural garden area, but to the side and the rear of the property
I wasn't suggesting a driveway or a proper building but somewhere a garden shed
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:40:01
As you can buy and look up
Yes, you could put a garden shed there but a garden shed is timber a
Public Speakers - 1:40:09
Purpose -built garage and store is going to there for perpetuity if it's built well the last time and 30 150 years 200 years
If it's designed as we have done like a rural agriculture barn, single bay,
two single bays for the for the cars and one for the store, it gives the
space and the storage that is required for a modern family home. Bearing in mind
that cars are getting bigger, Tommy's car is obviously adapted and the equipment
you need these days for just a reasonable large garden,
ride on lawn mowers, all the other bits and pieces,
it starts to get quite considerable.
So shed, although possibly an answer,
it becomes quite impractical.
I don't think you put an expensive electric wheelchair
in a garden shed either.
It's damp.
It needs to be a proper construction phase requirement.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you. Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:41:18
Thank you, Chairman. I think most of mine has been answered following what I asked Councillor Ward.
I just have concerns slightly about the security of the building in a way.
Obviously the further away it is from the house it's going to be a bigger security risk.
and having close access to, if you like, doing a quick run, if you like, could be of an issue.
But other than that, I think most of mine's been answered. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:42:03
I understand your thoughts. We could put it closer to the house, but then it wouldn't be hidden behind the mature trees and hedging.
And the whole point was to try and melt it away
from any visible public domain, particularly the green.
So its position, again, reiterate what I said before.
It allows parking, turning, hides away.
Yes, it's a little bit distance away from the property.
But with the windows proposed on the front of the cottage
and the side extension, it gives you that natural surveillance.
And if you talk to police departments,
they all always encourage to have windows overlooking such outbuildings for that protection, for that security.
In addition, of course, it's easy enough to wire up the cameras and lamps.
Only a quick one on, I mean, looking at the building you're proposing,
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:42:54
looks a lot better than the outbuildings you're going to be knocking down, of course.
I think the neighbours are pleased, the garages are going absolutely yes. They need to go
because they are dangerous now as well.
Public Speakers - 1:43:05
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:43:11
So just wondering about the visual of the senior nice ability to improve the situation.
Public Speakers - 1:43:17
Aesthetically as a designer over many years I think it's a considerable improvement onto
what exists now. Thank you chair, thank you Councillor.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:43:32
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:43:34
Thank you. Councillor among. Thank you, Chairman. You mentioned that pre application advice
had been sought prior to the application being submitted. To what extent does the application
before us reflect all of that advice.
The advice received was very much similar to what
the report has of reports, which I say have been written now.
They consider it too large, too incongruous.
Public Speakers - 1:44:03
And that word incongruous means a multitude of things.
The design before you or the designs before you now
are a considerable reduction on what was done on the pre -app.
The garage building did actually have a room in the roof.
That has been removed, the eaves and ridge have been dropped down,
but we're keeping a steep pitched roof to continue with the design traits,
not just in the host cottage, but within the village of steep roofs.
In terms of the extension, we've regularised that, reduced it in size considerably to reduce the bulk,
but also to maintain reasonable space inside for use by the family,
and particular, obviously, for the ground floor for accessibility.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Gaughan.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:44:53
I find this really interesting, all these different questions,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:44:56
and it's great that you've explained the additional size of the building is to adapt for
the disability, so I really appreciate that you've gone there.
So a few questions, and I'm glad you reminded me of that gate that was down at the front
that used to be an access way from what I remember back in the day.
And it's a question, two questions I'd like to ask is you offered some additional photos,
it's quite clear, everyone needs to understand what's around that area, etc.
Why weren't you allowed to submit those photos?
There's one question.
Very good question, Councillor.
Public Speakers - 1:45:36
We asked if we have a memory stick, we could have them viewed and we were told it's audible only.
We can't bring in any other information into the committee meeting.
Excuse me, Councillor O 'Grom.
That wasn't part of their presentation, the picture.
They mentioned that he had some photos.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:45:46
Yeah, that was mentioned in a question.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:45:49
It wasn't mentioned in his presentation.
Sorry, he did mention that he had some photos that he wanted.
I won't argue with the chair, I appreciate that.
So my other point would be, so again, because a lot of us,
well, some don't understand the environment around there,
I'm gonna add another question.
If it was agreed to pass, if,
would you be acceptable, sir, some conditions,
like say around the garage?
Because again, this is where I should go
with technical shortly.
Over the years, because it was an agricultural field,
you could put a great big 60 by 80 barn there
if you had wanted to.
But would you be, if it was agreed to allow you to have a garage, would you, I don't know,
I might have missed the trick, but have some more trees put up and screening, etc. for
the area?
In short, yes.
My clients wish to carry out further planting to enhance their enjoyment and I think to
Public Speakers - 1:46:52
actually increase the mass of the existing hedgerow and around the outbuilding, as well
around the extension if needed. I think a mixture of landscaping for gardening, shrubs,
low dwarf, but around the potential garage building I think would welcome condition to
put in a landscaping scheme. And then Chairman, my last question would be,
like you'd previously said, it doesn't really come into there, but you know, the family has
been associated to that village for a long, long time. It's a very strong community -led
and it's quite clear from what I see.
So would you want your planning application,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:47:28
this is a bit of a hard hell to put this,
you wouldn't want to alienate the village
if you were gonna live there
with a specialised planning application.
Would I be right by asking that from what you said earlier?
Sorry, I'm not aware, Councillor Gough.
Public Speakers - 1:47:43
Well, it's clear that you're building,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:47:47
you would like an extension in garage
to accommodate the need of yourselves to stay there
and the child that you look after, hence the size of it.
But you wouldn't want to put, and you said,
I may be leading the question here,
but you mentioned you wouldn't want,
you know, the family's lived there a long time,
you wouldn't want to ovulate and then move on, would you?
Absolutely not, no.
The plan is to, not just for us now,
but my daughter in future years
to have the house for her family.
Public Speakers - 1:48:13
I'm sorry I led that slightly, Chair,
but you know, you had mentioned about that.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:48:20
That's all I need to ask, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:48:26
Chairman, having indicated my wish to ask a question
at the beginning and seeing you inviting other councillors
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:48:30
that didn't indicate, I wonder, will you get
around to my question at some point?
Yes, now.
Thank you, Chairman.
A lot of it has been answered and it's clearly
that it's a very good proposal that you've put in
and clearly the issue is about scale.
And I think you've addressed that issue to some extent
in terms of the ground floor, although it's difficult for us
to get a sense of that given the drawings are not drawn
to scale with the scale on them.
But again, I would appreciate if you could help us
to understand why the overall extension needs to be
of that scale beyond the areas on the ground floor that need
to be adapted specifically for the child.
That's the first question.
The second one is that although the garage, from what you're
saying, is not incongruous, to use the word you used,
from the green, if you're travelling along Cane End,
Cane End Lane, it would be clearly very visible in a way
that a garage closer or smaller in scale wouldn't be.
So the issue really in my mind that I'm trying to resolve here is the scale and understanding the scale of this development
against the quite justified need.
I think on the current garages you can see those when you come down that lane as it is.
So you either see those old ones or you see a much nicer
Public Speakers - 1:50:04
looking
garage and again, we're looking to plant along there to make that higher as well if necessary.
In respect of the
design and the, I think probably alluding to the first floor.
If we create the ground floor accommodation,
it still ends up being two bed cottage, no good to the family.
As we have two children and my client and his partner,
and obviously guests to come to stay, extended family, friends to come stay,
not only just their own friends, but their children's friends as well as.
I was just saying sometimes an overnight care is required for Tommy as well,
because relief is available.
it's not a 24 hour every day of the week,
there is care available sometimes
and they have to have somewhere to stay as well of course.
Just for the pay counsellor is that the property
is in need of modernization and refurbishment
to bring it up into present day standards.
So just to do a single store extension with two bedrooms
is not gonna meet the family needs,
but to extend in the manner we're proposing,
which is not as large as they would like,
but we think is acceptable.
It's worth spending the money on the property which is going to be there for another 200 years to be enjoyed, we hope, by generations of the family to come.
And hopefully that, Councillor, answers your question. Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:51:27
Any more points of clarification? No. Thank you both very much. You may take your seats.
Thank you.
Chairman, I just want to advise the committee that we're now going to go into technical
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:51:49
questions for agenda item five, the first application.
Okay?
The garage.
The garage.
So we'll do technical questions for the garage application.
Do you understand there are two applications, Councillor?
No, can I just ask through the chair. I would rather the technical questions I
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:52:14
have to ask at this stage because I've gone through that are to do with this
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:52:18
part of the application and I'd rather be able to have those dismissed or
accepted at this stage rather than go back to the next bit because my brain
can't actually do that and keep a balanced mind and be able to determine it properly.
So I feel that I'd be disadvantaged.
Can you let me finish?
Okay.
There are two applications that are being brought to this committee.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:52:46
We did the presentation for both at the same time and then we did the public speaking for
both at the same time.
We must decide each application individually.
So we are now going to have technical questions for the garage application.
Following which, we will have debate for that application and then you will vote and then
we will move to the demolition of the existing single -storey extension application technical
questions and then debate and vote on that application.
Councillor Powell. Point of order I think Mr. Chairman as we've heard both
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:53:36
applications together I have technical questions that cover both applications
and I would like to know if it's in order if we've heard both that we
technical question both.
I'm happy to discuss individual applications afterwards,
but the technical, I think, really need to be both together
because that's what we've just heard.
Chairman, there is one legal officer advising this committee.
My advice to this committee is that we have
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:54:05
technical questions for the garage application.
Following, you will have debate for that application
and then you will vote.
And then we will take technical questions
for the subsequent application.
I submit to your advice.
Councillor Powell, as Chairman I have to take legal advice.
Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:54:26
Okay, so we're now moving to technical questions on application, which is agenda item number
five, PL25, oblique 54, 28, oblique FA.
Okay.
Councillor Hussain.
Mr. Chairman.
In the
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:55:29
various questions and presentations it was put that there are a number of garages in the area.
Can the officers confirm or
elucidate on that? Number two, my second question is the fact that the way was
initially presented was that this was agricultural green sort of land.
Whereas Councillor Ward and also the other speakers
stated that this is land that's been used already
as a garden area and as a play area.
So would it be more appropriate to call it brownfield land
rather than green meadow grass that's gonna be urbanised?
And my last question is on the garage is,
is the objection to the size
and scale of the property or is it to the design
and the materials being used?
Bearing in mind, again, the speaker suggested
that it was in keeping with other designs and materials
and they would try to use materials under condition
that would try and keep it as agricultural
or as in keeping in the countryside as possible.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:57:06
Thank you, Councillor. So with regards to the presence of other garages in the locality,
factually, yes, there are other garages in the locality. They're not necessarily similar
in size or location to the current proposal but yes there are garages
within the village. In terms of the use of the land and whether that comprises
residential curtilage or not that's covered in paragraphs 5 .50 to 5 .52 of
the officer report. It's officer opinion and certainly from the planning history
research the planning permission has never been granted for the parcel of
land to be used as garden we've not been in receipt of certificate of lawfulness
So officers have based it on the knowledge that we have of the site
From the visit in terms of members hearing the discussion today and drawing a different conclusion
You're perfectly within your right to do so
In terms of the particular design concerns in relation to the garage that set out obviously within the officer report
But also the first reason for refusal where it's covered off that it's the sighting design and scale of the garage
By virtue of the overall height scale and massing of it and sighting forwards the dwelling house
the officers have concerns in relation to
as per paragraph
5 .7 of the officer report officers have not raised a concern in relation to the materials proposed
Thank You councillor Starchbury, thank you paragraph over eight
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:58:32
You you go into
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:58:38
The Vale of Wales Pre -Plan policies BE2, BE4.
You go into the fact that the plan was passed in 2021.
You then go into the Vale supplementary planning documents
section 12 of the National Apartment Planning Framework.
and then you refer to 2024 guidance and national funding levels. What I need to
understand is out of all those things which ones really the lead because the
2023 MPPF is superseded by the 2024 MPPF the planning guidance in the Vale of
plan is now losing its planning weight against emerging Buckinghamshire plan
one would presume and also it may have lost a lot of its legalese because of the
emerging 2024 MPPF. So when we're making this decision or making a decision
negative or positively in pursuit of this application whichever way you want
look at it are we sure that the decision we're taking reflects the context that
the application is going to be in in the emerging Buckinghamshire plan and the
Striden MPPF 2024 because it's aspirations are in southern
Berks doesn't refer to its aspirations on landing north Buckinghamshire so
might want to discuss why not but but that's not in there so I'm really quite
concerned that those policies might not support the principles of the
recommendation and are they in legal I've got the legal weight to support the
recommendation which is a technical question so I didn't speak on it earlier
because I felt that the applicant wouldn't be able to answer that. Sorry if it was a bit
Convoluted but then I'll wait a while to ask you
Thank You councillor Stutchbury so in terms of the value of Elsby local plan policies
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:00:59
They are the development plan policies and therefore the starting point in terms of the assessment of the application proposal
the subsequent and Elsbury Vale design supplementary planning document is that it is a
Supplementary planning document itself. It supports what is set out in the policies within the valve, but it is supplementary
So in terms of the starting point of the assessment, it is the Fair Liver to be local plan policies
in terms of then the material considerations of the MPPF
2024 it is the 2024 version that we are using not anything prior to that because that's what's of relevance at this point in time
In terms of then the National Design Guide that has been in place for a number of years now not changed in recent term times
In terms of the Buckinghamshire wide local plant that's at such an early stage of preparation at this point in time
We're not giving weight to any of the policies within that that's why we've not referred to it within the officer report
I hope that helps. Yeah, thank you for that just that
We all constantly hear the word plenty weight and on different applications
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:02:02
I remember how we're applying that plenty weight today when we discuss future applications in future. Thank you
Thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. Yes, and Councillor
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:02:17
Lecane's already clarified the status of the garden. But the other thing that's
troubling me a little to understand is that in terms of the
weight, the failure to adequately address flooding issues from what is a
fairly large building but not huge and the ecological assessment, not
adequately assessing that seems to have gathered a great deal of weight.
Could you explain how that could outweigh the needs of a,
to manage the disabilities of a resident in the building?
So in terms of where we're coming from as officers,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:02:59
the requirement for site -specific flood risk assessment is set out within the MPPF
and our own policy I4 of the FairLiverthory Local Plan,
where a site is in excess of one hectare.
Those policies don't make any specific reference insofar
as household development proposals being exempt
where such a site is large in size.
It simply says factually within both those policies and the MPPF
that where a site exceeds one hectare,
a site specific flood risk assessment shall be provided.
Factually, one has not been provided as part
of the application.
And therefore, in terms of the failure to comply
with that policy, that's why we've identified the conflict
and reason for refusal on that point.
It is simply that conflict.
Thank you.
That's really, really helpful.
But would it not be normal to ask the applicant to supply
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:03:47
that before it gets to this stage?
And are there ever occasions
where a planning officer would make their own judgement
in the absence of the reports, given the size
of the development of the building?
So we wouldn't request further technical information
where we have other reasons for refusal already
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:04:06
because it would simply put the applicant to further expense
when as officers we raise concerns in relation
to a number of other regards.
Had it been a sole concern, yes, we may well go back
to the applicants and request that information.
With regards to the failure to comply
with that policy requirement, we as officers have identified
that conflict and as a result, we can't say that the proposal
has made adequate provision for assessing the impact on flood risk. I note that you asked about
the weighting in terms of the benefits of the scheme for the applicant and what that would
provide in terms of sort of the longevity of the current occupiers and how that can be weighed in
the balance. That is something for you as members to assess in terms of the level of weight that you
attribute to that. We as officers have obviously identified in the officer report specifically what
weight we have attributed to that, but you can draw a different conclusion.
Laura, could you just, just one point of clarification. Can you confirm they must
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:05:07
give great harm to the, give great weight to the harm of the conservation area? Is
that right? That cannot be changed. Correct. So great weight must be given
where the impacts upon designated heritage assets are now set out in the
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:05:21
officer report that's to both the conservation area and the settings of
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:05:34
buildings in this instance. Councillor Powell. Thank You Chairman. I'm not sure I
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:05:36
was clear on the answer given to Councillor Hussain. I've been busily
beavering away so I'll just ask it again if I may. Is the land classified as
garden or agricultural?
It doesn't have planning permission or benefit from a certificate of lawfulness for use as residential garden.
So in our eyes as officers it's agricultural land.
Thank you.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:06:01
The...
Appendix B
doesn't show the barn.
Appendix B
on our document pack.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:06:20
It doesn't show the barn that is referred to but I understand that's a dwelling house
and the positioning of that may have a bearing on the building line from one to the next.
So we can see it yes on the photograph but on the that photograph is not within our document
pack and again I've looked on Google Earth and seen that.
So does that even if this is classified as not garden land does that have a
bearing that line on a building subservient to the main dwelling house
in this application? I might come back to you about the line point finally if I
may but in terms of the presence of the building either on the location plan or
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:07:15
the area photography. We've taken the location plan provided by the applicant
for the purposes of today's presentation. I agree it's not visible on there and
but obviously plans do change over time and so this is a reflection of the plan
provided to us planning officers by the applicant. In terms of the presence of
that dwelling the area photography clearly shows it there and it dates back
a number of years in terms of whether that sets the precedence for anything
and I think that's why you referred to the line.
For us as officers, we've had regard to the presence of that building and we've set out our position.
We don't believe that that should, in our eyes, be used to identify a different conclusion from what is set out in the officer report.
So if the applicant had provided different documents, then it sounds like it may have been a balance, this decision.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:08:10
well that's the way you just the way I interpreted your your answer. In which
case apologies if I wasn't clear we've had regard to the presence of the barn
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:08:21
the dwelling in drawing our conclusion today a different location plan would
not have made a difference on that point. I will hand over to our heritage officer
just in terms of if she's able to provide any further clarity to your
Hello, hi. It's fair to say that the eco house that's been built further away is outside
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 2:08:43
of the conservation area and it's quite well set back from the form of the settlement around
Ms. Joanna Horton - 2:08:49
the village green. So it's quite distinctly different and separate. And in the sense of
a building line here and in relation to this application, it wouldn't have relevance in
heritage consideration. Thank you for that clarification that really helps a
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:09:11
lot. Unfortunately I do however need to consider this in relation to the other
application so I asked this question not directly so as to upset the legal
officer but if permission is given for the dwelling that will have an
implication for the garage because of the equipment store that's needed. Now
Councillor Hussain mentioned earlier about his knowledge of access equipment
and vehicles and things like that. I have as much maybe experience of that. I don't
know if this person needs to be craned in and out of a vehicle, if he goes via a
ramp into the back of a van. You know the fact is there'll be a large space needed
perhaps on a winter's day and he's going out. They will need a lot of covered
space. So with regard to the Equalities Act does that have a bearing on the
provision of enough space for this child to exercise his ability to ingress and
egress this property whether an extension is built or not?
So yes, I've covered it
Namely in the second report with regards to the extensions to the dwelling house under paragraph
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:10:50
6 .9 and in terms of as you've said about a disability a disability being one of the protected characteristics
We as officers did take that into account in assessing the proposed application
But in terms of the information that members have heard today
And the conclusions that you wish to draw about the weight to give to the benefits to the applicant and their living arrangements
That's for members to apply the weight they see fit.
Members could come to a different view on the Equalities Act on that.
I understand.
Thank you very much for the clarification.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:11:23
Thank you, Heritage Officer.
Very useful.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:11:26
Thank you.
Councillor Monga.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:11:33
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:11:35
Reference was made to create application advice by the applicant's agent and the indicator
that they had indeed sought pre -app advice and made changes.
Did that pre -application advice consider this application
in relation to what appears to be developing
and that the main driver for this application
was provision for a disabled person?
And to what extent would you agree that
as the applicant's agent said suitable modifications were made to the original
proposals. I've got another point I'd like to risk but I'll leave it at that
for now. So as the applicant and an agent kindly presented they did seek
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:12:27
pre -application advice and as officers it was a negative response that was
provided along the lines of what is covered in the officer report today in
terms of the impact upon the dwelling itself and heritage assets. In terms of the justification
provided as part of the application, WIS officers can absolutely be sympathetic to the need
for more accommodation, but as per the officer report today and at pre -application advice
stage it's a level of accommodation proposed and the subsequent harm to designated and
non -designated heritage assets and the design of the property as well as the other technical
matters and are identified in the officer report that gives rise to the
officer recommendation for refusal in terms of the level of accommodation
proposed we understand that ground floor accommodation may well be needed to
support the continued living of the applicant of that property along with
their family and that it's not considered that the harm identified
would be outweighed by the benefit by officers. Thank you I just go on with the
So, the other two points then.
At the time of the pre -app advice or subsequently
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:13:38
with the application, were any reports submitted
from occupational therapists or GP practise
to indicate the needs that are being expressed
as being catered for in the application?
And then secondly, I'd like to just go back
to the question of the gap in the hedge with specific reference to the garage
and access there too. So with regards to the specific report reports being
provided or not the answer is no the applicant did provide some limited
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:14:17
details within their submission about the need for facilities on the ground
floor to accommodate a disabled child but it wasn't then supported by
of Occupational Health or GP reports, but not necessarily
that we would require those in any event,
rather we take what's submitted to us at face value.
With regards to the gap in the hedge point,
I've looked into this further.
It stems from an ecology comment from the ecology officer.
I think with regards to the hard standing that is going
to the left -hand side of the existing access point
and in close proximity to the existing hedge
on that left hand side, it is that area specifically that's giving rise to the concern. Officers
have heard the explanation and the willingness to accept conditions from the applicant today
and to some extent they may assist in terms of overcoming that issue with replacement
planting going in. But the reason for refusal also refers to a lack of information in regards
to biodiversity net gain and it's that level of information in addition which
is currently not being provided as part of the application. Thank you Laura.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:15:40
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:15:43
Thank you. Councillor Hoxley. Thank you Chairman. Mine is along the same lines as
Councillor Munger in your earlier submission, Nina,
that you mentioned about it not being a suitable location
behind the trees, if you like.
I mean, part of it, I mean, you probably,
it is visible at certain times of the year
and Mr. Mills indicated that obviously
it's other times of the year, it's not visible
because of foliage and what have you.
But what I was going to say is that
if when the other outbuildings were removed,
if the garage and store went on that particular site,
would it change the application in any way, shape or form?
So in terms of the sighting of the garage, our adopted design guidance states that garages
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:16:55
must be carefully sighted and proportioned so that they are subordinate to the main dwelling
and are not visually prominent.
This garage would be to the front of the dwelling, quite distanced away from the dwelling, but
but also the hedging that is at the front of that area
or field is not as high as the garage would be.
So you would see it from the conservation area.
And I'm not sure if my colleague would have something
to add from a conservation point of view.
From a heritage perspective,
we'd have no issue with the garage
to the rear of the property,
Ms. Joanna Horton - 2:17:34
or potentially even to the side of the property
if it was a proportionate scale.
The other garage that's close by in the conservation area
that was cited earlier is much smaller
and it is cited to the side of its host property
and it's cited setback from the front of that property.
And that's what we would be expecting to see
in terms of good design within a conservation area
and just in general good design principles.
Thank you.
Can I come back Chairman please?
Only quickly regarding the applicant did indicate
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:18:16
that they were more than willing to do more planting.
If that planting was sufficient to, if you like,
hide the garage and store, would that be acceptable?
From a planning perspective, green screening is temporary.
Ms. Joanna Horton - 2:18:36
We can't really control that. We can't control the permanence of it.
We can't control how fully it screens. We can't stop somebody cutting it down on a regular basis.
We can't prevent it from dying.
And it becomes a very, very difficult thing for us to manage in conservation heritage terms.
So our preference would be to meet the good design principles from the outset,
rather than trying to mitigate something that's fundamentally in the wrong place.
I hope that helps.
Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:19:21
I'm a little confused here at the minute, and I've listened to a lot of questions and a lot of answers.
I think the applicant and their agent made it quite clear that that was the minimum size
that they needed to facilitate the family home.
So therefore, you know, saying we will accept a smaller garage in another location is immaterial
here because the applicant is not going to build something that's not fit for
purpose for that family. So I've listened great detail about the size of the
equipment required and I certainly listen to Councillor Hussain who's got a
knowledge in this. I'm a little bit mind -boggled. I'm slightly confused as to
what we could offer this family under conditions if that be the case that we
were minded to support this application. Well I'm just gonna leave that for a
for officers to ponder on while I go to Councillor Cornell,
Councillor Gaughan and Councillor Harris.
And they're all replaced.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:20:54
Having looked at the house now on street view,
this garage I think would be completely out of keeping,
but would we be able to drop the roof?
The pitch of the roof a bit, would that make it better?
It's still a technical question.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:21:23
I think in terms of Councillor Cornell I think I understand your question in so far as you're
asking as officers could we ask for the roof pitch and height to be dropped. That's not
the scheme before us we have to assess the scheme as submitted. I'm sorry it's not possible
for us to condition it. I think it was off the back of your comment, Councillor M 'Hann,
in terms of what might be possible under condition. We have to assess a proposal that's on the
screen before us.
Thank you, Laura. Councillor Gormley.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:21:59
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:22:03
Thank you, Chairman. And following on from Councillor Huxley, to do the possibility of
screening, had you discussed that with a client, and then Joanna comes back from the heritage
side and says, well, you know, green screening doesn't help a great deal in that sort of
area.
So why is the planning, you know, when we have applications come in front of us and
it's a little bit controversial, screening is required, we put trees and bushes in.
But now I get a bit of a contradiction from yourself, saying under a heritage area that
doesn't really work.
So that fazes me slightly because in many areas out in the agri - you know rural area
Most farmers or landowners will put trees up to screen something so whether it's inherited or not
So I was struggling with that one why we wouldn't allow it. But anyway moving forward
This just for two clarifications. So maybe a condition could be put in whether it's a temporary greening or not, but
But the question is, is where the old buildings are and their neighbour doesn't particularly
want them to have something there is what they said.
So the applicant, as I see it, has maybe looked for a compromise to move what's there, but
this is where I'm going to need you to help me.
This is where I really drive down.
On its hectares, I measured it up, it's about 1 .4, 1 .5 hectares.
That's regarded as a small holding and you keep referring it still as agricultural land.
Therefore, under permitted development, they would be allowed to change the buildings that
are there at the back and extend them to less than the size, to more than the size they're
asking for.
So, in a way, they could do it under the rule.
I could be slightly wrong.
You're shaking your head.
I'm not the planner.
You are.
I'm just a controversial counsellor with land to ask those sort of questions.
But, or the other way I'm going to flip this on the head is with it being agricultural
land like you keep saying, they could have before, I'm playing devil's advocate here,
tricky planning, would be they could have applied for an agricultural because if you
look at some of the photos that there, they have used that land for hay making, farming
machinery, they could have applied for an agricultural building of size for
implements and storage of hay, then applied afterwards to change its use. So
I'm just thinking that's what they could have done, but correct me if this is
technical. There's many hypothetical scenarios that may or may not be
possible, however in terms of permitted development rights, I think what you're
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:24:48
referring to in terms of the erection of an agricultural building on an existing agricultural
unit has to be over five hectares.
Five hectares.
Five hectares.
But from one point forward they can extend and...
Yes, if they are existing agricultural buildings.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:25:06
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:25:08
However, all of that is a hypothetical scenario and I think in terms of coming back to what's
before us today in terms of a domestic garage, an area of hard standing and proposed extensions
to the dwelling, I think we have to centre upon what is in front
of us today and not what the hypothetical scenario may
or may not be.
As officers, we've put an assessment in front of you
as members based on the plans provided
and we've identified what we believe in terms of,
around concerns to do with design, heritage, flood risk,
and ecology impacts.
It's for you as members to consider those
and whether you agree with the conclusions drawn or not,
rather than the hypothetical.
I'm glad you appreciate my hypothetical questions that are legitimate questions
but are possibilities so thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:25:53
Thank you. Councillor Harris.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:25:58
Sorry I thought we moved on to debate. Can I wait until debate please?
Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:26:01
Councillor Hussain.
Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me one technical question
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:26:09
in the sense of can you tell me in relation
to the garage, double garage with a pitch roof next door to this property, how
bigger this is compared to that one.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:26:37
Councillor Hussain, are you referring to the garage next to the schoolhouse?
We've got a plan.
Nina Hewitt-Jones - 2:26:41
So you'll see here Laura's just pointing out the garage
and you would be able to appreciate the,
no which garage are you talking about the?
Mm -mmm. Okay.
So if we got a plan that shows the proposed garage alongside
that one.
Yes, here we are.
So you will see that this is the garage on the neighbouring property
and when you compare the size of that with the proposed garage, you will see that the proposed garage is
more than three or four times larger than the existing garage. Maybe at least two sizes larger.
It's hard to see on this plan. It is larger than that.
I wouldn't say three or four times.
I was going to say probably I'd say twice like double in terms of the footprint of it.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:27:43
I'm really sorry I don't have the eavesaw ridge height for comparison beside me but in terms of footprint that would be much more.
Thank you. Councillor Starchbury have you got another technical question?
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:27:59
Yeah it is. I was debating whether to ask it the next stage or this one but I think because of
the points that count for Munger and come from Pultmade.
It's probably best to ask it now because it really influences
probably relates indirectly to both applications.
Noting that the Vale of Albury plan in its policies
states it's leaning towards the Equal Rights Act,
states in its policies.
And in policy H6C it discusses accessibility and it prioritises that in the Vail Plan.
So that is an objective that the Vail Plan wants to achieve.
And in M43, policy M43, it discussed wheelchair access and housing accessibility,
which are quite strong points in the Vale of Alby plan, which the plan,
which the council agreed in 2021, was it 21, might have been, done.
And then if you go on for that, it also is special needs.
It goes into policy C2, which is the planning class policies
around disability and access.
Now, they're not in the planning application,
but they are in the council's policies
around how it would want to interpret what I think we're all struggling with
here is this disability question and where we can find some weight in
favour or to clarify whether we can use that weight in favour. So that's why I'm
asking these questions because we need to clear that up at this stage rather
than in debate and I think it may carry the same question if I can remember it
We'll go back to the next application as well, because if we don't do that and we are making
a decision contrary to our own policies around disability and we're making a decision against
our own policies around the fact that we recognise the Equality Act and the Council also recognises
the Equality Act in its policies, we may come up against the problem that on appeal we'll
be told that you haven't recognised your own council's policies.
You've made the decision pro and full.
So I'd like to have some understanding because I can then in debate, I may be able to reference
that or I may have to disregard it because the legal people tell me I'm just being, Robin
is a bit autistic and goes around with things, but I'm actually, that's how I'm seeing this,
you know, and I need to have it clarified.
Sure.
Let me provide some help some guidance as much as I can from a legal perspective
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:31:07
Officers have provided a very helpful report
providing their expertise and their waiting
You are the decision -makers you may wait this differently as long as that waiting is not irrational
I will advise you that we we are in tilted balance and the officers conclusion were that the adverse impact the adverse impacts
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
when assessed against the framework as a whole.
They came to a planning judgement on,
in terms of the garage application,
they came to a planning judgement on whether
this residential outbuilding,
how far it could extend the domestic curtilage.
Now I know it was raised earlier,
that that extent was needed to accommodate a wheelchair user
and that a garage of that size would be needed.
So it certainly wouldn't be irrational for this committee
to come to a planning judgement
that in order to accommodate a protected characteristic
and in order to accommodate this disability,
that was the particular reason why this garage
needed to extend out to the extent that it did.
Which case through you, chair,
can I, if we move the debate,
why it's in my head,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:32:39
make a formal proposal which might be refused
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:32:41
or not seconded or not agreed.
But I would say when a proposal is made,
if it was counter to this recommendation,
as the decision makers and we are in tilted balance,
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:32:57
you would need to redo the weighing for us
to show how you came to the conclusion that those planning harms
no longer significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
because you've ascribed further weight to the benefits that we've identified.
Yeah? Okay.
Thank you, Councillor Stutchbury.
Councillor Harris have you got another technical point? No? Okay, no more technical points. We're now going to move into debate.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:33:29
Councillor Harris.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I think that the legal officer has completely summed it up.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:34:02
I think it's wonderful that the two local members have brought this before us, because
all the arguments we've heard, we've been all around the houses with the different problems,
are completely subjective.
It's all about, is this too big, is it too little?
Well, I don't think it's too big.
You might think it's too big.
It's up to each one of you to make that decision for yourselves.
And I think overall that we have a serious problem in Buckinghamshire.
Everyone moves to Buckinghamshire, the schools or whatever,
but they move to the lovely countryside.
We're then overly protective of our villages.
So I'm sure the chair will be the first person to say,
no, we don't want that built here, we don't want that built there.
It's hard enough fighting HS2.
But here we've got a situation whereby people are within the neighbourhood,
that they're part of the neighbourly setup.
They have specific circumstances that require
that they have both the house and the garage
in order to go forward.
And they have an agent who is extremely sensitive
to the problems and therefore has come up with a scheme
which actually isn't oversized in my opinion.
And therefore I would propose that we went forward
on the basis that we've weighed up the imperfections
and we don't think it's so imperfect
that it doesn't comply with our own requirements.
I think we have to set the materials conditions
to make sure that if the building is built
and you agree with me, then the materials are used
I'll be completely in sympathy with the rest of the area.
There's also a question of planting.
We should put a planting thing in there,
maybe have it go away so that the people
who mention the planting aspect
can have their input as well.
So put it as a reserved matter.
And then as far as the bats, et cetera, are concerned,
we can investigate the bats.
But if they do find bats, you only need a bat box.
So it's not, none of these things are insurmountable.
And so I would like to propose that we go against
the officer's decision on that basis.
Thank you.
We do just need, again, to redo the balancing
and ensure that members are aware that you must attribute
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:36:15
great weight to the harms to the conservation area that can't be changed
but that you can ascribe greater benefits to the benefits of the scheme
but that we would also need that resolution to approve would also have to
recommend conditions that officers consider to be appropriate and perhaps
those can be resolved in consultation with the chair. Um, Laura can I just say that
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:36:50
yes we have a proposal but you know the planning committee members here sit on
this committee to have their say so I've got a full list here of people who would
like to speak so therefore before I would take any further advance on
Councillor Harris's comments I would like to hear what the committee members
who put their hands up what they have to say and then I'll come back to
Councillor Harris at the end. So I'll move on to Councillor Stutchbury.
Well, I was going to propose was very much why I had the experiment, the discussion in
to find out whether it was any grounds to do it.
Then I was hoping I was going to be able to propose it.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:37:40
With the conditions, my proposal is that over and above the work of the officers on preparing
this application in line with the policies of the Council around the open spaces and
green areas land.
I propose that we accept that because of the extenuating circumstances of this, that the
Vale of Algebra Plan policies which recognises the 2010 Equalities Act,
which also goes on in policy H6C.
Accessibility, which is recognised within the Vale of Algebra Plan,
which is our current development plan for the north where we are.
and with wheelchair access being permanently part of the members discussions of the meeting,
that M4 -3 of the policies accessibility, again, overweigh and put more planning weight on agreeing this application.
And we move back into special needs policies, which is under C2 planning,
which again puts more weight on the necessity for disability than it does
for the necessity against the weight of the prejudicial to the conservation area.
That I would in my summing up in proposing or seconding, I'm not worried
who votes what, I think on those basis we put more weight on the necessity to
provide stuff under the Equalities Act and those policies and would support the application
primarily to deliver a property to meet our obligations under the Equalities Act under
the Value of Equity Plan voted for and agreed unanimously by this Council.
And if that isn't policy enough on the disability side of it, and I think that outweighs, because
on appeal, I believe that on appeal I would be coming back with that on appeal, that we
haven't met those needs.
Thank you, Councillor Sertwee.
Councillor Hussain.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:40:09
I am in concurrence with my fellow councillors and I think built on both their arguments.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:40:12
Councillor Powell is well aware because of the nature of his work and I am because of
nature of my work of the size of vehicle that is necessary for a teenage child in
a heavy large wheelchair and the amount of space needed to embark and disembark
from that vehicle. And also through my work elsewhere, through my career, I don't
think the officers have understood the amount of equipment and medical supplies
that are needed for a child with any disability,
let alone severe disabilities.
I think Councillor Stutchbury has been very astute
in making the technical arguments,
and Councillor Harris has made the emotional argument,
which I would support of a family that is there,
not wishing to move out of the area that they love,
wishing to stay where they want,
and make the house, as one of the speakers said,
forever house for them to live in in an area with amongst the neighbours that
they love and enjoy and I think the fact that the materials can be conditioned
the landscaping can be conditioned and also the bats can be conditioned I think
ways towards a proposal to approve this application. Thank You councillor Hussain
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:41:45
Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you chair and I think we need to remind
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:41:51
ourselves that there are, we're looking at a garage here, we're not looking at
the house and it seems to me that from what the officers have told us and the
reports are very clear that it's too large and it's in the wrong place.
That's quite quite quite clear. Now the arguments that we will come to later to
do with a house, quite rightly, we
should be taking a very different view in terms
of the disability act.
But I really don't think we can apply the disability
act to a garage.
And I would take some legal advice on that.
But it seems to me that it is certainly in the wrong place
compared to in relation to this community,
as was reflected by the parish council.
and it is certainly too big for this type of development.
Mr. Chairman, any disappearance of vehicle,
you'll see a sign behind it that says,
please do not park within three metres
for a ramp to be let down.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:42:50
Thank you.
Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:42:57
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:43:00
I really appreciate the Heritage Office's comments and I do have concerns about the
view which really isn't clear on the plan submitted in our documents. I would like to
understand in greater detail the impact of that in the surrounding area. Now I was looking
that parish council comments were initially no objection but then
subsequently the parish council do consider the garage to be in the wrong
place and too large. Now whilst I also agree with the proposal that's not quite
yet on the table but was mentioned in the beginning,
that's where I would like to weigh my balance.
In principle, I think the garage needs to be that size,
but I have concerns about the visibility of it
in the landscape.
And as to my colleague, Councillor Smith's comment
just now that we're looking at the garage
not the dwelling. I disagree. I think they are connected and I challenge
the opinion that these have to be decided completely separated. I think
they're inextricably linked.
And that's my opinion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Powell.
Councillor Mungo.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:44:51
Again, as with Councillor Smith,
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:44:56
I remind members we're discussing the garage only
at this point.
If you look at the drawing that's on screen
at the present time,
it doesn't take one doesn't even have to have
the measurements to see the proposed garage
is at least three times the size of the garage
at the neighbouring property.
I have no, obviously I'm conscious of the emotional issues
that have been put before us,
but we have to deal in material planning considerations
and the material planning considerations in my view
are entirely supportable in terms of the recommendation
from the offices that the application should be refused
on the grounds that the development by way
of inappropriate siting design and scale
would fail to respect or compliment
the physical characteristics of the site
or its surroundings.
I think that we should not be contesting that at all and I would certainly be supporting
the officer's recommendation and if it hasn't already been moved I'm prepared to move that.
Thank you Councillor Munger.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:46:17
I will, as I said Councillor Munger, I will come back to the proposals but I do want to
let everybody have their say.
I think it's important that that happens.
Thank you.
very much for allowing us to have our, all of us have our say towards the end of the application.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:46:34
So I follow Councillor Harris and Starchbury poll as well. It's, you know, one is linked to the
other and vice versa. It's a shame that they are two separate applications because they are
definitely linked along there. It's a shame as we're, I was using both, but then I don't need
them. But it's a shame that the opportunity hasn't arisen for you to
really understand that area, all the different buildings, maybe you know I'm
gonna push the boundary because I don't want to stop this going through today
but a site visit would certainly have paid off. Oh, someone shake, you know,
because then you would understand all the different buildings in that area and
maybe another and it's quite clear that the parish council didn't object but
but then they objected slightly,
but you know, that's just typical of what goes on.
But it is a very tight knit community
as we've established from the ward member today
and from the local people themselves.
Again, a site visit,
maybe you would have learned something from there.
But in my opinion, it's quite clear that the applicant
and doesn't wanna upset the area.
They want to continue to live there.
There is a need as Councillor Stutchbury,
has quite clearly pointed out within our policies and all of that that carries on.
So take an eight, ten. And again, there you can, whilst I appreciate what Joanna
Houghton says about, you know, green screening is only temporary, that's
what trees are all about. But it's screening that comes in, you know, bats
even go up into trees and screen themselves and then disappear. But, you
there is a purpose.
So I feel there could be a good compromise
by accepting the application as it goes,
but one of those applications does go with the other.
So like I said, we should have maybe looked at the two,
but I will be looking to support the application
when we come through.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor Goldman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:48:49
And I just want to remind the committee,
Anybody on the committee can make a recommendation or a proposal for a site visit.
Councillor Cornell.
Thank you, Chair. I actually, this is going to stun you. I'm actually going to agree with Councillor Munger and Councillor Smith that
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:49:12
this, we're looking at the garage, which I think is going to be completely out of keeping with the area and it's enormous.
And it'd be far better in my hummer pin to be around the back,
but you will be able to see it. Having looked at the street view,
I think it's not going to be complimenting the village at all.
So I will actually be saying I would be standing
with the officers on this one.
Thank you, Councillor Gibbon.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:49:33
I'm just looking at sort of the notes we were given
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:49:40
and paragraph 5 .10, it says that one of the principles
of the NPPF is to seek to create places
that have a high standard of amenity
for all existing and future users.
So I was thinking this should carry quite some weight
because we're talking about the quality of life of a teenager.
Sorry.
Could you just move your?
Sorry.
That's it.
Looking at this NPPF statement about how
we should create places that have
high standard of amenity for all existing and future users,
I believe that this development, that's what this is doing,
is creating a quality of life for a teenager for the foreseeable future.
And so I think that should carry quite some weight.
And I agree also with the Council of Stutchbury about this sort of equality.
This would enable, again, a much higher quality of life for this young person.
In terms of this garage, I did go on a site visit myself,
I thought that would be useful to see and get a feel of the area.
And having looked at it,
I really don't believe that the garage would be out of character.
There are other garages very similar in the area.
And also it will be built out of materials that will blend in very well.
So that's just my view.
Thank you, Councillor Gibbons.
That's been very, very interesting. Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:51:12
We've had our debate. I'm now going to go to Councillor Harris.
Councillor Harris, are you going to make a proposal as you did at the beginning?
If I can remember German.
I think that contrary to the views of the officers,
that on the garage, the scale and mass of the garage
Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:51:41
that are not out of keeping with the area
and other buildings surrounding.
I'm sure from my years of driving through the area,
there are plenty of three bay garages
standing alone in their own setting.
Added to that, the weight of the argument
put forward by Councillor Stutchbury
regarding the access for disabled,
I'm quite surprised by colleagues here that don't really understand how big these vehicles
are with the special ramps, et cetera.
If you, as I say, you need three metres behind the car in order to just get the wheelchair
down and then move it from behind the thing.
So I think it's a combination of the need for access, limitations on the use of materials
need to be reserved and agreed with the officer.
And then also, the bats are pointed this way,
the bat's on this one that we need to do
a little bit of bat investigations if it needs a bat box.
So if the officer can improve the wording on that,
that would be greatly appreciated.
I think officers may need clarification
on the weighing and balancing,
Because that is, we must provide the waiting.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:53:05
You are the decision makers.
The harms that were identified were
detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area.
Harm to the significance and setting of the non -designated heritage assets.
Thank you.
the less than substantial harm, the significance of the conservation area,
and again, that must be, you must accord that great weight in the planning balance.
And the setting of the nearby listed buildings,
and failure to demonstrate protected species in existing hedgerows.
So I think some of those harms you are saying can be mitigated with suitable planning conditions.
Yes, I think that's what you're saying.
Yes?
and that you are affording a great weight to the benefits of accommodating
the personal circumstances of the applicant.
Yes.
Okay, so we've got to pause. Councillor Starchbury.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:54:16
Secondly, I won't... I presume people wrote down what I said about the conditions.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:54:19
I can go for it again, but it might come out in a slightly different order.
But those, we should consider, and on the weight decision we can ask the conditions
for the design to be included additional bat facilities in the height of the roof of the new property
to a coat for the baths. We can also ask for the building materials to be in
keeping with the ascetic of the area that it sits in. We can also ask for the
additional environmental gain by putting in some swallowed nesting stuff
into the roof, bricks and stuff like that to encourage it to become a nesting
area within a village area there's not enough places for swallows and switch
the nest so we can put those bricks in there so we can start adding
environmental gout it also put something in for the bumblebees it can move into
it so this becomes an absolute all -round -year habitat for wildlife
having taken on board your comments my recommendation would be that the
proposal asks that the conditions be resolved in consultation at the chair
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:55:42
The chair having had the benefit of all of your discussions here today.
Those things to take into consideration because we can design this to be an asset for the environment.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:55:53
Okay thank you Councillor Sertabri.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:55:58
Sorry does the proposer understands and accepts?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:56:02
Yes I'll certainly accept the whole thing yeah.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:56:10
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I was confident. Yeah, yeah, I
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:56:12
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:56:15
propose for me to vote. Do officers have enough to reweigh that balancing? Yes? Yes, thank you.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:56:21
Okay, we've got a proposal and a seconder. Does anybody else want to propose?
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:56:27
Make a proposal. Well, we have to vote on the vote on this one first. Yes. Okay.
Okay, so all in favour of the proposal to go against the offer's recommendation and approve this application.
All in favour?
Subject to conditions that will be set out between officers and myself.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Eight.
Against?
against?
Three.
The application is approved.
Whether I need it.
Wait.
No.
No abstentions.
It's approved.
Yeah, no abstentions.
Can I just bring a point across, please, Chairman,
because what we just discussed with the garage was more controversial than as
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:57:38
far as I'm concerned of what we're now going to talk about the house and I
personally feel we should just continue to I know you'd like to go for debate
I'm sure we can but like you say it's sorry you're older than me oh well
Well that's wonderful, I didn't get to that point.
Excuse me.
Yeah.
Okay, guys.
I've got to be very careful here,
or I become a quiz host
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:58:06
who sets it all up,
and everybody has their say,
and then he goes to a break,
and everybody's left hanging.
So what I'm gonna do is,
so we've got technical.
technical debate and voting on agenda item six agenda item six and then we
have agenda items seven that is correct okay we take a 10 -minute break now
you're you're a good priest faster channel yeah yeah

5 PL/25/5428/FA - 1 The Green, Hulcott, Buckinghamshire HP22 5AX

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:58:55
Welcome back officers, ladies and gentlemen. We're now going to go to the second part of
a separate application, but for the same premises. This is item six on the agenda, PL Oblique

6 PL/25/5427/FA - 1 The Green, Hulcott, Buckinghamshire HP22 5AX

25, Oblique 5427, Oblique FA. We've heard the officer's report, we've heard from the
local member, we've heard from the agent and the applicant, and we're going to go straight
to technical questions. Raise your hands if you would like to ask a technical question.
Councillor Stutchbury. I said in the previous technical discussion I want
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:59:58
to show and say the things that I mentioned and I believe to advise
differently they carry the same weight in the sense in planning terms so I can
I'll repeat them all again quite readily.
I also believe that the environmental gain
that we can gain from this new development
in the design and the build out of this
can be built out to be an added to the environment
in the sense that this is a different structure
in a different application, but the same principles
of building in environmental facets to it
to increase the biodiversity in the area can be done.
And so I would be happy, unless anybody wishes to do a different
pose that we accept this application on the grounds
that I mentioned around the disability and access issues.
Councillor Sturchbury, this is...
No, I'm talking about technical issues.
No you're not, you're making a proposal that you cannot make at this stage.
I'm just saying at the next stage, if you let me finish saying what I was saying and stop me halfway through.
If I wasn't able to, in the next stage those points and conditions were able to be considered.
If they're not, I need to know now because we are on a different landscape if that was the case.
and that's why it's a technical question if I'd managed to finish the sentence.
So it would follow the same process as members just have done on the previous application,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:01:51
so in terms of identifying the conditions that members believe to be necessary in order to put forward a revised proposal,
it would follow exactly the same process.
Thank you, that's what I was trying to get to because otherwise it would be disrespectful.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:02:10
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:02:13
Thank you. Councillor Munger. Thank you Chairman. I really need to ask the same question as I did about the garage and that is in terms of pre -application advice can you confirm that the applicant was advised that the property was that the proposals were in excess of what was deemed necessary
for what they're required.
And to what extent does the application
reflect the advice that was given?
And also, I think I'll leave it at that
in terms of technical questions.
Just can we clarify that point in terms of
pre -app advice that was given
and how the application relates to that pre -app advice.
Yes, so the pre -application proposal that came in was for a larger extension than that before members today.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:03:17
So the applicant has scaled the proposal back somewhat in response to the advice provided by officers at that pre -application advice stage.
Obviously as officers we don't feel it's gone far enough hence the officer recommendation that the applicant has revised the scheme.
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:03:37
Can you also confirm that the existing property is a two bedroomed semi detached property and that it will become a four bedroomed, five bedroomed property?
Correct, two bedroomed to five bedroomed is part of the proposal.
Are you happy, Councillor Morgan? Thank you.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:03:52
Councillor Hussain.
A couple of questions, technical.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:03:58
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:04:02
One is, can you, does the officers, sorry bad English,
do the officers know how many other properties in the area are two -bedroom?
Do the officers feel that a two bedroom property
in one hectare is efficient use of the land
as per, because on page 48 you quote
the MPPF, paragraph 11, and if you go to paragraph 11,
section D, it talks about promoting and supporting
the development of underused land and buildings,
especially if you would help to meet identified needs
for housing and for particular types of housing.
And I point to my colleagues talk about the exceptions
because of the quality and disabled.
So I don't have a precise number in terms
of two bedroomed homes in Holcott or the surrounding area
or Buckinghamshire as a whole.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:05:02
But in so far as the identified need point
and making an efficient use of land as offices
that we interpret the MPPF to mean in terms of meeting an identified housing
need and for the general purposes the MPPF that's generally in terms of
housing supply in terms of five -year housing land supply and the overall
delivery of housing as opposed to individuals extending their own
properties and that's not to say that members cannot make an interpretation
different to that but that is how we would as officers interpret that point. I
where as officers we've acknowledged not least in terms of the wording that is
provided within the officer report within the section about the Equality
Act around the fact that we acknowledge that a level of accommodation would be
needed to meet the applicants needs but rather it is the scale of the proposal
put forwards that officers have raised the concern towards. Thank You
Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman.
I think in this application,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:06:09
there are weaker reasons for refusal,
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:06:13
but there are two very significant,
and I would like to explore those, please.
The design of the building,
as was explained to us by the architect,
has been made such that it separates the two dwellings with a lower roof line in the middle.
They could have come forward with a continuous line.
So the drop has been picked up in the reasons for refusal by the Planning Officers.
but it seems in discussion that the pre -application advice conversation didn't go so well.
I may be wrong.
A building would normally have a 30 % rule applied in footprint and this doubles the footprint.
Does the fact that it's an adaptation for a person with a disability have any impact on that?
And finally, to the heritage officer, the non -designated heritage asset or conservation area,
which has more significant weight? Thank you.
If I could start with your last question, if that's okay.
So there's greater weight attributed to the harm
Ms. Joanna Horton - 3:07:54
to the conservation area and to the setting of listed buildings
than to the harm to the non -designated heritage asset.
However, it's the harm to the non -designated heritage asset
in part that is contributing to the harm
to the conservation area.
So they are interlinked.
And if I can skip back to the beginning of your question
and talk about the design, what we
would expect to see in a situation like this
is that we expect an extension, in addition
to particularly historic buildings,
to be stepped down and stepped in.
So we wouldn't expect it to go back up again.
We would expect it to look like the neighbouring property, which
has an extension to the side that steps down and steps in
and runs out.
So you've got a very obvious stepping
that then runs down to a lower level detached garage
in the instance of the neighbour.
In this instance, what you've created
is if you look at the top image at the right,
the pair of semis, the original pair of semis
there, largely two up, two down, with some small side
extensions probably in their earliest rendition there.
Rothschild's buildings, a number of the buildings
around the village were made over in the early 19th century
by the Rothschilds.
And we have architects such as George Deavey,
who's a renowned architect, having
built some of the properties.
and then his style has been used and applied to alterations to numbers of other properties
within the conservation area. And that leads to the conservation area appraisal talking about
homogenous appearance within the conservation area. Although you've got buildings of different
periods and different dates, there is a homogenous appearance there. You've got a very
a small form around a tight village green and in this instance with the non -designated heritage
assets, you've got these four very modest Rothschild's cottages, farmworkers cottages,
and part of their character and their significance is in their modest scale and their picturesque
DV -esque detailing.
So what you've ended up with in this proposal here is you've added another gable onto the
front of the original cottage that would never have been there in comparison to the picture
at the top.
And then you've replicated that and added that on the end.
So what we're looking at there is what appears to be a terrace of buildings.
Nowhere in the conservation area do you have terraces of buildings.
You do not see that building form anywhere.
Even the pairs of cottages are asymmetrical.
And that's very devey, it's very picturesque, everything is asymmetrical and soft.
What you've got there now is quite a hard and quite an urban looking style.
And from a heritage perspective I feel that you could even achieve the level of accommodation that you've got,
but still by providing a better design that properly steps down,
avoids that terracing effect,
and still allows the applicant to have the accommodation that is necessary.
Does that answer your question?
There was another question perhaps that Laura needs to pick up.
It absolutely does. Thank you very much.
Sorry, before you do, could I just ask,
If we're mindful to approve this application,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:11:52
could your proposal be dealt by a condition?
It would be a redesign, so no.
Okay, thank you.
Laura, do you want to answer the other question?
I think Chairman, the Heritage Officer
has answered all of my questions, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Gough.
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:12:11
I'll be quick, so I'm conscious, Chair.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:12:15
I'd just like clarification on a technical.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:12:19
On point four, it says the existing building
is of a style that could look after roosting bats,
et cetera, blah, blah, blah.
But with the new design and that,
it could have an adverse effect.
I'm struggling with that because the original building
is stained, it's just an extension to it.
But again, if it would have a possible effect,
what condition could be added if we were looking
to approve the application to counteract that.
Thank you.
Just before you answer that, Laura, if I may, if I may,
if I can refer you to page 53 of the agenda pack
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:12:57
and the ecology response comments.
Holding objection.
Further information is required in relation to bats
and hedgerow natural buffers.
A preliminary bat roost assessment is required prior to determination of the application,
alongside evidence of natural buffer retained between the existing headrow and the proposed
garage.
Now, has that been done?
No.
So a preliminary bat roost assessment has not been submitted to date.
So hence the reason for refusal from officers on that grounds
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:13:43
It's well accepted that imposing a pre -commencement condition in relation to bats is not sufficient
And so at appeal that has stood up that if members were minded to overturn the officer
Recommendation and felt that trying to protect bats was necessary
Then imposing a condition that requires that assessment to be carried out and then any mitigation identified within that
than being secured, that may assist in terms of limiting the potential impact upon that.
Okay, and can you just confirm that we could put this as a condition prior to commencement of works?
Yes.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:14:22
Thank you Chairman, I understand why you're the Chairman now, because you knew what was in the book,
but I was just bringing that to a head.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:14:32
And it is a shame that we haven't had that dealt with prior
to the applications date, but there we go.
We are where we are.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No more technical questions.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:14:46
I'll therefore move into debate.
Councillor Starchbury.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:15:16
I would like to potentially propose that the application is agreed in line with the principles
of the aspirations of the Vale of Ashbury Plan, policies H6C,
and wheelchair access within the Vale of Ashbury Plan,
which is on policy M43, which is stated in the Vale of Ashbury Plan,
and housing accessibility needs, which is a policy within the Vale of Ashbury Plan, C2,
and which would be in keeping the council's aspirations to be in compliant
with the equality apps and recognition of its policies in other development
plans in the sense that it wishes to make provision within Buckinghamshire
for people with known disability needs. Also to take on board the points raised
by the officers around the, to be sympathetic to the points around the officers to be conditions
to be put in the application to improve the historic nature of this building in conjunction
with its contemporaries that means other buildings similar and the property next to it to and to
include designing environmental facets into the building,
such as an opportunity to put swallow bricks in it
and such things, which means it will then,
by being constructed, add to the wider environment
of the area and the curtledge and the interlund
that it actually inhabits and will become an added benefit
over and above the needs of the family
and to meet the future needs of the environment there.
And any Pacific planting with offices and conditions,
offices feel, are in sympathy with those aspirations
and the aspirations, the policies of the council
be considered by condition.
Thank you.
I've taken on board your proposal,
but as always, I'm going to allow fellow members
to have their say.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:17:34
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, thank you chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:17:45
There is no doubt that from what we've heard from officers, an extremely good report, that this is not a great design.
It has a harmful impact on the conservation area and on that particular village and on the buildings.
And that it is far too big and really ought to be reconsidered.
Having said that, the arguments particularly from the applicants
really gives us a very strong, unlike the garage,
this gives us a very strong balance that we really have to consider.
And we should make a considered judgement about where we see that balance to go.
And it's a perfectly appropriate kind of decision to make, I think.
So whilst accepting that, yeah, they really could have done better with the design,
and really, does it need to be that big?
We are where we are. We're judging this application as it stands,
and the balance in terms of the needs of a family who want to remain
and to adapt their house for modern living,
and particularly to support a young person with disabilities,
I think we have to vote in favour of this this application so against the
recommendation of our officers regrettably. Thank You councillor Smith.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:19:08
Councillor Paul. Thank You Chairman. I'm gonna take a contrary view this time.
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:19:14
Absolutely everything that's been said I support the the aims of this family but
I absolutely take on board the Heritage Officer's comments. I think if were the
roofline of the third part of the building of a similar scale the
extension as large as it may be would look subordinate and would be more in
keeping would enhance the conservation area and the important non -designated
heritage asset.
So as this stands, I disagree with my colleagues.
Where it redesigned, I may take a different view.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Hussain.
I support Councillor Stachbri's policy statements.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:20:02
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:20:04
Also Councillor Harris, when he was talking previously,
the fact that this is a family house
that wants to be built for a family to live here forever
who want to stay within the community
that they've been brought up in.
And the fact that they're gonna tidy up the site
and get rid of a lot of ancillary bits and pieces
around the back that are very untidy.
And also, I mean, design is in the eye of the beholder.
Having been doing this almost 36 years,
I find it strange that the Heritage Office
is talking about heritage design
when the property next door is almost double the size
of what is being, or bigger than what has been offered
and is a similar kind of a white render
with a brick underneath.
I will be supporting my colleague, Councillor Stutchbury,
in proposing that the proposal is approved.
Thank you, Councillor Hussain.
Councillor Munger.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:21:18
I think members should look at the illustration
on the screen that's up at the moment
in the bottom right -hand corner
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:21:26
and just take on board the fact.
Well, in fact, first of all,
look at the top right hand corner and bear in mind these illustrations and
this may be where Councillor Hussain's print perhaps just being confused. This
is all related to these are all related to the same property these are not
showing different properties. So the top right hand corner only the left hand
half is the property that we are that is the application property. So then move to
the bottom right hand corner and again bear in mind that of the part that
appears white on the screen which is the original building only the left hand
half is the application property we then have a replacement for the small single
storey extension and then the new extension so it virtually triples the
size of the frontage of the property.
There isn't any doubt in my mind that the application
is well described in the officer's comments on refusal
in that the proposed extension would not be necessary
to provide the level of ground floor facilities required
to accommodate the disabled occupier
and that this provision could be met with an extension on more limited scale.
In actual fact, what I've just read you is from paragraph 6 .9,
in which the officers challenge, respond to the requirements of the Equality Act 2020.
So, to satisfy Councillor Stutchbury, the officers have responded to the Equality Act 2020,
And it's as I have just said, that the requirements could be satisfied
with a more appropriate and more limited scale of development.
With that in mind, whilst I'm hugely sympathetic to the need,
it might be one of those cases where one might say, well,
So if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't have started from here.
So trying to convert a two bedroom, semi -detached cottage
into a five bedroomed mega home might not
be the best way to have proceeded
to get to where they want to be.
With that in mind, I would not be supporting any proposal
to just for clarification chair has a proposal been made at this stage yes
well a proposal has been made but it hasn't been seconded because I wanted to
allow all members to have their say including yourself okay well that being
given the opportunity I would be proposing acceptance of the officers
recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Cornell. Thank you chair. I agree with
Councillor Munger as well. This is totally out of keeping with the village. I agree
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 3:24:57
with the officers. It is not in keeping. It looks they just squished all
together and I appreciate the needs for the disabled child which are big. We don't
need this pretty ugly. I don't think we could do it in less
from the roofline or one level so I will I'll be supporting officers thank you
councillor Gibbon I'll be supporting council Stutchbury because as I said
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:25:32
previously I have been to the site and having looked at the house and the house
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:25:36
next door even with extension it will still be in keeping with the surrounds
and especially the other two semi detached next to it and also I
don't really see how it's going to affect the heritage assets as it's quite
a way away from them so I don't think in that respect is going to cause any harm
either. Thank You councillor Huxley. Thanks chairman I take the comments
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:26:11
from the Heritage Officer but I'm I've been to Holcott for a year or
two now but I just wonder how many semi -detached houses there are in
in the Holocaust out of interest because I would say that in that particular area I would have thought a semi -detached was out of keeping with the area.
So anything that's tagged onto it I should think is superfluous to the argument in a way.
So all I will say is that I will be supporting
Councillor Stutchbury's proposal.
Thank you, Councillor Harris.
Thank you very much, Chair.
First I'm gonna have to apologise,
gonna have to leave in a minute.
But what I do want to say on this is that
Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:27:07
if one looks at the wider area,
and look at our villages all around Buckinghamshire,
they're all hickety -pickety,
and made up of different bits and pieces.
because before we had planning control,
you built what you like, you booked it wherever you like.
And as a result, we heard from the officer for heritage
that yes, it all looks very tweed, it's all very nice,
which would suggest it fits, it just doesn't fit
with this particular conservation area.
But if it was somewhere else, it would fit quite easily.
So for me, it adds character to the area,
and I think we can argue that for the other,
reasons which Council such group fits forward that we've actually got something
here that we can move forward. I think that we're being getting too tied
up with it with the arguments that are so easy so easy before when we've
got an opportunity here to actually do something good. We are overly protective
of our villages but the big problem we've got is there's such
imperfections in the property market in terms of stamp duty, in terms of finding
other houses in other locations, that even if you wanted to go out and find
somewhere to be the perfect answer to what these people need, it's just not
being built. It hasn't been built, so it has to be, it has to be bespoke and I
think that we've got an opportunity here to provide them with this, with the
bespoke home that they need. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Harris.
Has Councillor Gough?
Thank you.
Right, so as we start wrapping up, and we don't want to lose Councillor Harris just
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:28:46
yet please, don't disappear.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:28:48
I can't remember what that's saying that Councillor Munger talked about, about starting here,
ending now.
I've never heard that one before.
But the reason a gentleman started there was because the families have lived there for
years and years, and the opportunity has arisen for him to continue to stay within that local
community. Then following on what Councillor Huxley said, you know, about
semi -detached houses or small houses in a village like that, you used to see them,
you still do a little bit, but they were for the farm workers. At times, pro -Greston,
it works like that. But it's quite nice to see a traditional house that's been
there for years and years is now kept but just added to rather than being
knocked down over a big estate. So I think it's quite good on that respect as
and that's what we have to see.
I will be strongly supporting the application.
If we had had a site visit,
I think you would have understood a little bit more
of how that is a lovely little village,
but it's a very diverse and strange little village
with all these different houses
and people that live in there too.
But, and it's a close knit community.
So again, sticking to that application,
I will be strongly supporting that.
Thank you, Councillor Grom.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:30:09
we have no other comments in debate so we have a motion on the table which is
to approve the application against the officers recommendation. Do we have a
subject to conditions? Seconded by Councillor Harris. Just need to make sure
Officers are content with how we would do the balancing and
Please may I obtain just clarification in terms of it being the same as the previous application proposal
I would just like clarity on that front place. I
Think as we all identify the two go hand in hand and realistically there's the same issues apply to both
Thank you that
Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:30:55
the proposal
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:31:01
intends that officers resolve suitable planning conditions to overcome planning
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:31:03
harms in consultation with the chair. Yes. Okay could I just make another comment
as well. Going back to reference page 53 which I refer to on the back of
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:31:14
Councillor Gomes. I would want that preliminary bat roost assessment to be
done prior to commencement of works. Agreed? Okay, so we have a proposal, as I said, and
we have a seconder to approve the application subject to conditions agreed with the officer
and myself and to approve the application against the officer's recommendations. All in favour?
Eight. Those against? Three. The application is approved subject to what I just said regarding
conditions. Thank you. Councillor Harris, thank you very much for
substituting today. It was a pleasure to have you here.
Councillor Smith, thank you very much.
Order.
Order.
Chairman, before we go on to the next application, I would like to say on behalf of all of us
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:32:41
how difficult it is for some of us to go against our officers' recommendation.
They always put in so much work, which we appreciate, and like I say, it's quite difficult
to go against them.
So I'd like to say thank you on our behalf.
I'd like to second that.
Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:33:03
I think we all unanimously agree with the hard work that the officers do to prepare the reports for us every month. Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:33:22
Can I also say, point of order, very refreshing from Councillor, Officer Pearson, in the way she has put all the arguments and the fact that she has placed the reason we're here is to make a decision.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:33:24
Otherwise, there would be no point.
It would just be a rubber stamping.
So I do commend her for the way she's
put the place to her own.
Hear, hear.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:34:07
We now move to Item number 7, application number PL, oblique 25, 5427, oblique FA, at

7 PL/25/5263/FA - Portway, Buckingham Road, Hardwick, Buckinghamshire, HP22 4EF

page 55 of the agenda pack.
Could those speaking on this application today please respond after I call your name to indicate
you are in attendance.
Please ensure that your verbal representations to the Committee relate to the relevant planning
considerations regarding this planning application being considered and do not
include any personal comments. Each public speaker will be called to speak
and will come to sit at the public speaking area. After members have asked
any points of clarification they can return to their seat. Mr. Philip Duke.
Mr Musa Rajat.
Did I?
I'm here instead of him, Mr Atif Rajat.
His father was fully consentful and quiet.
That's fine.
That's fine, thank you.
And Mr Shahid Ali.
Yes, fine.
Not yet.
Not yet.
I need to, sorry, just remain seated, please.
I will now call on Case Officer Anna Souter to introduce the report on the application.
Thank you.
So this application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of two dwellings into a
Anna Souter - 3:36:13
single dwelling and extensions including a first floor side extension, a two -storey infill
extension between the dwellings, a two -storey rear extension, a roof extension
over the existing two -storey side structure and a front bay window. This
application has been referred to North Area Planning Committee in accordance
with the council's constitution as the applicant is related to a ward
councillor. This plan shows the location of the application site to the north of
the village of Hardwick on Buckingham Road which is A413. The
application site is within the Quainton, Wing Hills area of Attractive Land
landscape.
So the plan on the left shows the location of the application site in relation to the
nearest neighbouring properties.
The separation distance from the application dwellings to the nearest neighbouring dwellings
are all more than 40 metres and on the right is an aerial image of the site.
This plan shows the existing layout of the site and it's just been rotated so that north
is up.
Can you see that?
Yeah.
Building 1 here is a dwelling known as Portway.
Building 2 is also a dwelling,
it's just known as Annex.
This was previously an ancillary outbuilding to Portway and was given
permission for conversion to a separate independent dwelling in 2019.
The other buildings on the site,
so 3, 4, 5, and 6,
all ancillary outbuildings or garages.
This photograph was submitted with the application and it shows
location of Portway House, Portway Annex and Duke House and some of the landscape as well.
These photographs were submitted with the application and show the front of the dwellings
as existing. So Portway here on the left and then Annex on the right.
These photographs were taken from Google Street View and show the front of the site as viewed
from Buckingham Road.
From viewing the site from the road this week, these images are an accurate representation
of how the site currently appears.
These photographs were also taken from Google Street View and show the visibility of the
These photographs were submitted with the application and show the rear of the dwellings
as existing.
And these are just a couple more photographs of the rear of the dwellings taken as part
of a planning application last year.
So this plan shows the proposed layout of the site.
Again, it's to be rotated so that north is up.
So number one, Portway here,
and number two, Annex would be combined into a single dwelling
and linked by the proposed extensions,
shown in green here, number three.
The other buildings on the site,
which are four, five, six, and seven on this plan,
would remain unchanged.
The proposed parking layout is shown here,
and the existing access to the main road
would remain unchanged,
and the Council's Highway Officer had no objection to this.
So this slide shows the existing and proposed ground floor plans.
The areas shown in green are the proposed extensions.
The depth of the proposed extensions would be approximately 7 .9 metres from Portway on this side and 7 .1 metres from Annex on this side.
And the width would be approximately 25 metres across.
This area in purple here is a permission that's currently extant and that was given last year as a like a permitted development application.
So this hasn't been implemented yet, but they could build this.
Yeah, there's a single storey this purple bit.
And then this is the existing and proposed first floor plan.
So again, the parts in green are the proposed and there's a balcony on the rear.
So these are the existing proposed front elevations.
So on these elevations, the parts that are in colour are the parts that are proposed.
These labels here are just about the materials.
All the materials would match the existing buildings.
This is the existing proposed rear elevation.
So on the rear elevation, there's a balcony here at first floor level,
and these are solar panels on the roof.
Existing proposed side elevations to the north.
And then existing and proposed side elevations facing south.
And again, there are solar panels on the roof here.
In terms of the floor area, the existing gross external floor area
of both dwellings combined is approximately 221 square metres
and the proposed gross external floor area
would be approximately 400 square metres.
And so to conclude, the reasons set out
in the office report is recommended
that planning commissioners refuse for the following reason.
So the proposed development by way of the two -storey
extension of first floor side extension
would significantly increase the bulk and mass
of the existing dwellings to be converted
into a single dwelling.
The proposed development would not be subservient
or subordinate to the existing dwellings and would overwhelm
and obscure the form of the existing dwellings.
It is considered that the proposal would result
in an overly dominant, overbearing,
and incongruent form of development,
which would have a detrimental impact on the character
and appearance of the host dwellings to be converted,
the character and appearance of the area,
and the quaint and wing hills area of attractive landscape.
Therefore, the proposal will be contrary to policies NE4
and BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury local plan,
Section 8 of the Vale of Aylesbury Design and Supplementary Planning document,
the advice within Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework,
and Section C1, I1 and I2 of the National Design Guide.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Anna.
I now call on the objector.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:42:37
Can you come forward and take your seat at the speaker's table, please?
When you start speaking you will have three minutes.
Please remain in your seat when you've finished for any points of clarification please.
Thank you.
Hello I'm Philip Duke. I am the neighbouring resident.
I strongly object to this application.
This is not a modest extension.
You had merged two dwellings into a single much larger building.
The applicant describes it as a seven bedroom house of around 730 square metres with a footprint
increasing from about 222 square metres to 406 square metres.
So we've worked that out to be an 83 % increase in our view that is excessive for this rural
edge location and would be overbearing, visually intrusive and harmful to a local rural character.
It would also directly affect our amenity.
The property is close to our home,
and the proposed upper floor openings would increase
overlooking light spill disturbance and loss of privacy.
Recent tree loss has already reduced screening,
so these impacts would be even more noticeable.
I'm also concerned about the ecological assessment.
It does not properly reflect the site.
recent tree and foliage loss had already taken place before the application was submitted.
So the reporting does not present a reliable picture of the site as it previously existed.
In those circumstances, the council should be cautious about placing weight on
an assessment that appears to understate the site's recent baseline condition.
A further concern is the level of vehicle activity associated with the site.
We regularly see numerous taxi type vehicles, including models commonly used as taxis,
such as the Toyota, Paris, and minibusses.
I've witnessed vehicle activity, including maintenance,
and even on Google Street View you'll see large numbers of vehicles being parked outside.
This matters because the sheer scale of a seven bedroom dwelling,
combined with the pattern of activity raises real concern about the intensification, disturbance,
and highway safety onto a far section of the A413.
Even the parish council minutes on Hardwick Parish have on record that concerns that a taxi company may be operating from the parish.
So for those reasons I respectfully ask the council to refuse the application.
Thank you, Chairman and members.
Thank you. Do we have any points of clarification, please?
Councillor Hussain.
Thank you for your submission.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:45:51
You say it's close, but the officer said that the nearest property in the report, I think it said 45 metres away.
You said it's quite close to your property.
Yes.
So you're telling me 45 metres away is close to your property?
Well if you look at the openings on the windows you can see it would be, you can still see
into our garden area.
Public Speakers - 3:46:17
There's openings on the side of the upstairs and more windows put into the side of the
application.
Is yours the property underneath or the black property up top?
The one up the top, yes, where the cursor is.
Thank you. And for transportation.
Answer it, Robin.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:46:48
I thought I'd swoop in from the side.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:46:54
You mentioned like a visual impact towards your property
and you mentioned trees.
It looks like there's trees there now.
Are you saying there was quite a few taken down?
Yes, in our previous correspondence
with the objection we sent in photos
Public Speakers - 3:47:16
of what was there originally.
That was cut down and burnt over a few months.
They were burning them in the back garden,
and this was complained to the Hardwick Parish Council.
So what you see there, it wasn't like that recently.
That has been cut down to prepare for this application.
So a lot of the screening has already gone.
Okay, and then just all those, I don't think it could be a planning issue.
And you mentioned about taxis operating from that.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:47:55
Is that being confirmed or is that an assumption?
Hardwick Council, Paris Council was looking into that because you look back at street
view, Google street view.
Yep.
You see the taxis on the left hand picture.
So there's loads of them operating there all the time.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 3:48:19
Okay. And finally, one question for me, Mr. Duke, if I may.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:48:25
You talk about trees being cut down for this application.
In your opinion,
or do you know exactly how many trees were removed?
So in the picture we sent to the planning,
Public Speakers - 3:48:47
it should show a before and after. So if we look at side view of the house, if I
was to get side view up.
Apologies please may you repeat what the request was. If you're able to get the
aerial shots would be easier. So from the left hand side along those sheds there
was trees all the way along. So going from there to all the way down to the
going all the way along the top edge.
Yep, from there all the way to the front of the house
and to the, if you look at various Google pictures
over the years, it has totally, the landscape has totally changed. There is
pictures we've sent in saying
all the screening had been removed, numerous trees
and yeah the cutting and burning was going on for
weeks and weeks.
Thank you.
Councillor Mongar followed by Councillor Garm.
Just one quick question.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:50:14
Can you just identify your property on this particular shot?
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:50:16
Is it the one in the, towards the top right?
Yes.
Okay, that's all, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
And then following on from that, with what you said,
You're saying that the portway overlooks your property, which is quite clear that it does.
Have we got a front view of Duke House?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:50:37
Just an aerial view.
Have we got a view of the house next door?
As in the side elevators?
So we've got Duke House to the right.
Have we got a picture that would go to the left?
No. No. There. Okay. That's the nearest one. Okay. It doesn't really show nothing. Thank
you very much. No. Wanted. Thank you.
Thank you. No further points of clarification. Mr. Duke, thank you very much. You can return
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:51:13
to your seat.
Thank you very much for your time.
I now call on the applicant and the agents representative, please.
Can I just remind you gentlemen that you've got three minutes shared.
The time will start.
Three minutes shared.
As soon as you start speaking, the clock will start.
You will have three minutes shared.
Please remain seated for any points of clarification. Thank you.
May it please your Chairman and members of the committee.
Public Speakers - 3:52:11
The Portway is a family home purchased roughly a year or so ago, occupied by a large multi -generational
family of six children, elderly parents, grandchildren, and a child with a severe lifelong disability
requiring daily support and 24 -hour care.
The proposal is seeking to adapt the property to meet the real and ongoing needs.
It's not speculative and it's about making the home function properly for the family who live there.
Secondly, it brings together two lawful dwellings into a single family home,
providing an extension and a linking element so that the building works as one coherent, safe and functioning dwelling.
In so far as the makeup of the area, the area is varied in houses of differing sizes and or character.
There have been barn conversions, as we've just seen at Duke House, a modern home straight opposite,
and a finished white rendering home to the left.
The sizes equally vary in comparison
to the proposed property.
There are very many homes within the curtilage
that are extensive and larger.
And I just draw out some of those for your attention.
For example, Thorpe Cloud,
Longmeadow, Datchet House,
and very many others Bushmead, Millpiece,
and others within the close vicinity.
I just like to make a few points with regards to the -
Could you switch your microphone on please
and switch other one off, thank you.
Sorry, I just like to make a few points
with regards to the proposed dwelling,
If you look at the front elevation, it's subservient to the host dwelling.
I take the point that the re -elevation is developed across the full width of the development,
but nevertheless, is it visible from the main road?
And the answer is no.
The ridge line sits lower than the existing ridge line and the plot is generous enough
to allow a development of this size to take place. I think if the current owners
didn't acquire the property... Your time is up, sir. Please remain in your seat while
ask for any points of clarification.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:55:27
Councillor Hussain. A couple of points. One you said multi -generational family can
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:55:46
you elaborate on that. You also said there's a disabled child or disabled
person involved. What is a disability and what is their needs? What are you talking
about there.
And also, you talk about the architect or agent,
talked about the width of the property
or the size of the property being subservient.
From the pictures, it's within the current curtilage
of the two properties.
The width of the property is one width of one property
and one width including the annex.
Am I wrong in thinking that?
Yes, we're trying to get into between the existing, both of the existing properties.
Public Speakers - 3:56:33
So that's what you will see, again, is semi -obscure from the main road.
The landscape or parish council suggested that there ought to be some landscape improvements,
My next question was if we finish that is the objector has talked about extensive taking
down of trees and landscaping. Would you be conducive to a landscaping condition?
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:57:06
Yes, we've accepted those recommendations that have been put forward by the council.
Public Speakers - 3:57:13
I think there was a recommendation that came from Parish Council that we should implement
some of those and the client has accepted or the applicant has accepted those.
May I very quickly deal with the multi -generational aspects of the question?
The multi -generational aspects span four generations.
So my in -laws, myself, my children.
Excuse me, can you turn the mic off on the right hand side?
Thank you.
My children and then the grandchildren.
So there's four generations living or to be proposed to be living coherently within the property.
of which one of my children suffers from a rare metabolic disorder called citronemia.
I don't expect anybody to know it because it's that rare.
What it does require is it requires 24 hours care and an overnight feeding pump system.
But that also means that we are obliged to have a living carer with him.
So the extensive nature of the build will accommodate that
and enable the rooms to be of sufficient size to be able to ensure that we can allow a living carer there as well.
The other added complication we have is that my mother -in -law was the subject of a road traffic accident only a year or so ago.
She equally is now requiring substantial care, undergoing very many tests.
and it's more likely than not that there'll be a full -time carer with her as well.
So the necessity for the space that we've created through the project is very much proportionate in terms of needs that we as a family have.
I just want to turn very quickly to the landscaping matter.
as soon as it was brought to our attention through the parish council letter, we wrote immediately
through the agents explaining that we would absolutely be prepared for that to be conditioned.
Thank you. Councillor Pong?
I'm not quite ready Chairman but that's okay. Well I can come back to you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:59:39
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:59:42
please. Thank you. No problem. Councillor Munger. Thank you Chairman. Can you just confirm that the
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:59:50
property on the right and the top of that illustration which I think is referred is it
referred to the as the annex? Is that currently occupied by part of the family? Yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Carnell.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:00:12
Is George Child in a wheelchair?
No.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 4:00:17
No, but he has special needs requirements such that he gets transport to and from school
Public Speakers - 4:00:25
and owing to his condition he can fall down at any time.
So he requires the carer to be with him.
Hence, we haven't gone for a level ground floor bedroom.
He can at the moment certainly go up and down.
At times of him having severe episodes, he does need to be carried down.
But we address that through, we hope, a stair lift,
which we'll be implementing in due course.
Thank you. Thanks.
Councillor at poll, are you ready now?
Yeah, let's go for it.
I see in the application history on the site,
there's been many attempts to operate businesses from there
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:01:03
which have all been refused.
And there's, we heard from the previous speaker,
the accusation that a business has been run from there.
Can you confirm whether that is the case?
Certainly, I'm grateful, Councillor Paul,
for the question because it was,
owing to lack of time,
I wasn't able to deal with the matters
that have been brought to your attention.
Public Speakers - 4:01:25
Insofar as the previous applications for businesses,
we had nothing to do that.
We've only been party to the property for a year,
forgive me, it might be a year and six months,
but thereabouts, I think it was November 24
that the property became in our ownership.
Insofar as the matters have been addressed
in terms of taxi businesses,
I can unequivocally tell you
there are no taxi businesses being run from there.
The taxi business in question belongs to my brother.
He has his own garage and office on Osear Way in Elsbury.
The vehicles are used by residents off the property
and therefore when they're not being used,
they're just stationary.
So when you have lots of vehicles there,
it tends to be in half term periods.
So two, three, four cars are there
because they're stationary and they can't be used.
But there is no business being operated from there.
In that case then, do you have or require an operator's licence to park those vehicles there?
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:02:35
I'm unaware of a requirement to have an operator's licence to park vehicles.
Public Speakers - 4:02:44
If one is required, because we don't operate a business from there, I'm fairly sure one is not required.
But the answer is, do we have an operating licence from Portway?
The answer is no, because we don't believe one's required because it's for use of people driving the vehicle, not as a business operation.
Okay and just one final question for me please, follow on from Councillor Powell.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:03:19
I couldn't say, I've seen photographs of cars being parked there. Are those cars taxis? Have
they got taxi plates on them? And I know you said that they're being parked by residents or whatever,
which means technically you know they could walk from an office and then drive the car home and
and park it up.
I couldn't, could you just confirm
if those cars had taxi plates on them,
the ones that was parked there?
So I'm unable to definitively tell you which car was which,
but there would be some private cars.
I think you might see a white Mercedes there,
which is a private vehicle.
Public Speakers - 4:03:53
Other vehicles that would be commercial vehicles,
but being used by the residents.
So when they're parked,
they're very much private vehicles. But they of course...
Sorry, sorry. Can I just ask, what is your definition of commercial vehicles?
So a taxi is automatically a commercial vehicle because it's used for private hire and reward.
But it's only a commercial vehicle when it's being used. When it's not being used,
it's... You've got to park it somewhere. I mean, arguably it's still a commercial vehicle,
but it's not on commercial land.
You've got to park it somewhere,
and where else would you park it apart from your home,
if you're the one that's using it?
Okay, thank you.
No more, Councillor Starchbury.
Trying to be brief.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:04:48
You stated in, the sort of things that you said,
you stated that you would wish to do some environmental work
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:04:58
That confirms this was alluded that there have been trees and stuff removed earlier
and I note that you said you've only had the property for a limited amount of time
so they could have been removed before they could be removed present but there's
two things don't coalesce in my head and they may not be a planning reason but
it's an information thing as it's not in the application those two things were
raised and you said about improving the planting.
So whether they're connected or not,
that's for you to tell me really.
So I do think the two are related.
Public Speakers - 4:05:46
It's something that Paris suggested.
And the applicant was happy to take that on board
because we wanted to see further screening of the property,
but it wasn't due to felling of the trees or...
Thank you, I just, you know, I can't find it on Google Earth
and where it is, what it was like before,
and timings or whatever,
but Google Earth isn't always a record of what happened.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:06:18
It can be taken at any point in time.
But thank you for the answer.
Councillor Gough.
Thank you, Chair. I will come in.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:06:30
You go about the Hardwick Parish Council saying they support the application if there was a landscaping plan.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:06:37
That's not what it says actually. Well, it does say.
Hardwick Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds.
The development is extremely large and out of character for the rural location being visible from both highland footpaths.
The felling of the trees had a very detrimental effect of wildlife and biodiversity.
So it's a bit different to what you're saying, because the trees were, there was quite a lot of trees that were cut down.
So what they're saying is they would want to see a landscaping scheme if we decide to approve the application, not the other way around.
Anyway, and then you mentioned,
see if you could clarify,
you mentioned properties of the same size in the area.
You gave a list of names out.
So if I might, just bear with me, please, Chair,
is we go about the impact.
So the Duke House, which is the one to the top,
I don't think you mentioned that,
but that is like a converted bargain,
like you had mentioned, which is a low -level barn.
So I'm just helping for colleagues.
And then across the way is Millpiece.
You mentioned that one.
That is an agricultural house that is there
for the stable yard that's over there.
And as you can see, it's set right back and covered.
But then there was a few others.
From what I know of fact, the nearest house
that I would say would be of any description near the size
that would be the manor house down the road, which is as the picture drops, that's a farm
yard and then there's another house and then there's this big house set back in all these
trees. That is the hardwood place that you mentioned. That is, but, and again, that's
all set right back in the road. But there's nowhere of a description of that size property
that I would say so due to impact.
I think the nearest one would be up as you go towards Wickchurch.
There is one up that direction.
I will go with you on that.
But again, it's nowhere, it's big, but it's nowhere near the size of that.
It's a shame, Chairman, and we mentioned now we're learning
that someone has got disabilities, and I'm sorry to hear that within the family.
Shame we didn't know that prehand so we could have got up to speed a little bit
because we've already added application today that we were very aware that there was a sad
issue within the family. But just to bring it back to the application, so like you say,
the annex, you're using the plot with the annex there, and there were trees all the way around
that place. But can I ask, I'm going to ask a question, but I think it adds to this. So you're
everybody that lives there is family. There's two sheds at the front just there and apparently
they're occupied. They shouldn't be. I'm just trying to enlighten. So there's, you know,
we talk about these, there are taxi business going on there and are they rented out? We don't know.
So what is the real intention of such a big extension?
I'm grateful, Councillor.
Public Speakers - 4:10:15
I read within the papers there's a suggestion that there may be activities such as an HMO and others that underpin this.
Let me make the position very, very clear.
This is a family home. It's intended to be a family home, but it will remain a family home.
There is no intention for it to be a HMO for commercial use property or anything else under any circumstances
If it is required that a condition can be put in place and we would happily support
So a condition because we have no attention for it to be anything other than a family home
Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you
Councillor poll
Chairman I've made a dreadful mistake
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:10:51
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:10:54
It turns out that I have a business relationship with a relative of this applicant and I should
not, I believe, be sitting here in judgement.
Thank you for that, Councillor Bould.
I'll leave forthwith and take no further part in the meeting.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:11:10
Thank you.
We are still quiet.
We are still quiet.
I'm just conscious that I need to give Councillor Paul the opportunity to leave the chamber.
With your chairman's permission, may I just deal with the other properties around the
locality that Councillor Gough mentioned and the sizes.
I'd prefer if he didn't say anything for it,
or nobody makes any comments until Councillor Powell has
left the chamber.
Thank you.
Okay, you may carry on.
I'm so grateful.
Public Speakers - 4:12:19
Turning to the properties in terms of visibility from the roadside.
We very carefully did an approximation.
Please, we don't say it's to the centimetre.
Portway from the distance from the road
sits at roughly 30.
Roughly 30 metres.
Other properties that are closer to that include
7272 High Street, Wych Church at 14 .4 metres,
Briarwood, Lower Road 18 .56 metres.
There's a home adjacent to Yard's End,
I don't know the name of it, forgive me, 17 .6 Sullybank at 8 .47 metres,
Winston -Paddock at 1 .91 metres, and adjacent to Portway,
yards end sitting at 4 .17 metres.
So that's looking from the roadside to the property.
In terms of width and depth, i .e. the size of the property itself, we have it as follows.
Datchett, sorry, Briarwood being larger.
Datchett House, which is the one I think Councillor Gough refers to, being larger.
Hardwick Place, the Manor House that Councillor Gough refers to being larger.
Longmeadows, again, being larger, and not least Thorpe Cloud.
Again, we have it in terms of measurements being larger.
The point that we wish to dwell upon is this, is that the two properties already in situ
were not seeking to extend really the width of those properties from the roadside.
It is, we accept it's a build up of them, but we're not extending them in any true way.
The width is going to remain the same and it's commensurate with the local character
and area, we say.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Very kind gentleman.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 4:15:07
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:15:08
So I appreciate you coming up with those properties like that, but it's again, we have to look
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:15:11
at and for what you're saying you're using them as to compare but those properties that
you refer to these people don't know. Some of those properties you mentioned are a softer
impact to the area, some are set back in the village. That's very hard for all of us to
judge. We're judging the impact of what this possibly could have. So I appreciate you bringing
all those to us, but I can't see the relevance of that, to be honest.
May I just reply to that very quickly?
When looking at the relevance, I invite you to look at the character of the area,
Public Speakers - 4:15:52
and indeed whether or not this property would be in accordance with the character.
When we're looking at an area, Hardwick, in particular,
that has a complete variety of houses from different sizes to a whole different landscape,
it is relevant in my submission.
And of those properties I listed,
two of them are on the main road as we are,
one of them is adjacent to us,
and the other one, I don't want to be wrong,
but I think it's two properties away from us,
Datchet House, up the road towards Wyck Church.
So they are extremely relevant in terms of sizes,
proportionality, and whether or not it's in keeping
in my submission.
In my submission, the application that we submit
and ask you to endorse is most suitable for the area.
Thank you. No further points of clarification.
Gentlemen, you can take your seats.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:16:50
All public speakers are welcome to remain in the chamber
for the rest of the hearing.
Thank you.
We will now move the application to technical. Anybody got any technical
questions?
Councillor Starchbury.
Thank you, Chairman.
I need some guidance from the officers in this.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:17:37
There's been a lot of stuff said which in the discussions which were not in the report
and there was a lot of stuff said about where houses are and where they're not which are
not in the report.
I think we need to have some guidance on how we deal with the report because none of that,
unless I'm told differently, has any bearing on the decision that we've got to come to.
It's just like it's nice to know but was not relevant in the legal decision we have to take.
So I need some guidance on that before going any further because it didn't help me.
It got me more confused than I was before.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:18:34
With regards to that point, in terms of other properties in the locality, officers have had regard to the character of other properties in the locality when drawing the conclusions that they have done in the officer report.
So it's noted that reference has been made to a number of other properties, but as highlighted by Councillor Gaughan, they range from being within the village itself, to the circumstances of how they've come to be there historically,
to the point where officers didn't feel that the presence of those other properties justified any other conclusion than that reached within the officer report.
Just with regards to other information presented today, as that's what you've just touched upon, Councillor Stutchbury,
I would like to highlight that officers were not aware of the disability of an occupier of the property.
That information has never been presented to officers within the application itself.
Hence why in terms of the personal circumstances presented to councillors today.
It's not covered in the officer report nor in terms of the Equality Act or the Human
Rights section of the report.
I would like to add though that in terms of the Permitted Development Fallback position
as shown in purple on the screen, officers are not aware as to why that wouldn't meet
the needs set out within the applicant's speech today to committee.
So in terms of knowing why that wouldn't suffice to meet the needs of the occupier, we can't
shed any further light on that situation for members today as we feel that having
listened to what has been said that would suffice in terms of meeting those requirements.
Thank you, you've helped me know him because every application is separate within its
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:20:08
in law and facts that we've learned were not part of the original
application and not part of the officers report which makes it more poignant that
we remember that we're dealing with a new application not the one that we've
just dealt with because circumstances are different as the information
compiled by the officers are completely different which is for the applicant, my
view is for the applicant to put as richer information into the office to
consider later. Also the points around future use of a property we can never
guarantee what the property will be used after the application so it's spurious
and you know what it could be used of it multi -use or whatever the term was
that's bound by licence anyway so if it was a multi -application housing, multi -application
it'd be done on a different thing, not as it'd be licencing.
So it's not a consideration we can deal with
because it's not an application for that.
So I think it's a very difficult application
in the sense that one recognises the enthusiasm of the applicant,
but one recognises the diligence of the report
against the infusion of the applicant.
There's a balance in that, Chair.
And what I said, many of the stuff said in the discussions
weren't in the report, which had they been in the report,
we could have weighed them against in the discussions,
but they weren't in the report.
They can't be part of it, that's where I'm trying to get.
So it puts a slight different spur on it.
We have to be more careful how we come to view,
which we can do in the next section.
Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:22:11
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:22:29
I think, Councillor St
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:22:37
My technical questions are very, very simple.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:22:39
Is the width of this new development bigger
than the present two developments put together?
I think I know the answer, but I want it on record.
You've said about the extent planned from which
that's already there,
for the eight beta ground floor development.
How much would that add if the rest wasn't there?
And could conditions be placed on the application,
for one, forbidding a business being run from there,
and secondly, landscape conditions,
as to redirecting to ensuring that the landscapes are,
I won't say restored, but brought to a suitable condition.
So with regards to the width of the properties, the total width of the extension would be approximately 25 metres.
Anna Souter - 4:23:42
So it would go the full width of this one here, the original building, this one here plus.
So 25 metres includes an infill, which would be about 2 .5 metres between them.
In terms of conditions, yes, we can condition a landscape plan to require planting.
Other conditions in terms of business.
So there is no permitted development rights for that to change use from a house to business.
So in so far as it wouldn't be necessary to condition it because an application for planning
permission would be required in any event.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:24:15
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:24:24
Thank you.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:24:34
Has a habitat management monitoring plan been submitted?
No, it has not.
Council Ragon.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:24:48
Thank you.
If officers could just clarify a little bit, please.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:24:54
So we got about the bulk and the mass of the extension of the impact that it would have within the area.
And he obviously done a comparison to those in the area, which is one thing.
And where was I going?
But just going back to the report, number one,
I'm a little bit shocked at the highways report.
Because we're gonna double the site, well,
at least double the size of the property with allowing people in.
So therefore, there's gonna be a lot more cars in and out of that.
So obviously we'd allocated previously that the annex exception every so many because but that that that road if I'm correct
It's either 40 or national speed limit. So I'm quite surprised with the response that came back
from
Sorry, I just said it's like a 40 or national speed limits. Well, sorry
It's national. So I've been correct is national speed limit, which makes it even faster
So I'm a bit surprised that that's been sort of bipartite.
Showing that the highway's chaps here,
because I'd like to cross question them on that one.
But, and again, so when you talk about its impact,
could you just expand on that a little bit technically?
I know it, but again, I'm looking at the pictures,
the way it would look.
And I must admit, and again, if you could clarify,
it doesn't sit back as far as many of those
that I discussed about, about their size, quite big.
So in terms of highways, I think the highways officers
approached it from the position that there is already
residential use on that site.
It'll be using the same access that's
Anna Souter - 4:26:45
already in residential use.
In terms of intensification, I mean,
It's one of those where the existing property that is on the site by virtue of there being two dwellings there and it going to
One as part of this proposal the highways team haven't
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:27:04
It's not an intensification per se by virtue of reducing the actual number of dwellings on site
Or be it that there is an increase in bedroom numbers
So in terms of a material impact on the highway by virtue of it being a classified road subject to national speed limits
It's unsurprising from our perspective that how is it raised no objection to it?
Thank you.
No more technical questions?
Thank you. We'll now move into debate.
Councillor Munger.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:27:37
Thank you, Chairman.
Where to start?
Cllr Llew Monger - 4:27:52
If you and members would bear with me, I think it might be helpful to actually talk through some of the pictures that we have to illustrate some of the points I'd like to make.
Could we move back to the one that shows, well that would be a good one to start with.
The area shown in purple on the plan does have an extant planning consent, yeah?
But the areas in green would be new.
Okay. Can we then move back to the picture that shows the annex and the main building were say front on or in plan form?
Well there we are. So what we're looking at when we'll go after this we go to the finished
the proposed version. What we've got in the top left hand corner of the property is an
absolutely horrendous flat roofed extension which many serves from the proposal would
be significantly improved by having a roof put on it which would blend with
the existing roof and then if we look at the right -hand side of the property
called the annex that's there's a building already there within the total
footprint of what is proposed it's already occupied by the people who will
be in if we if we listen to the applicant from from what they said
earlier, that will be occupied by people who are already living on site. So all that seems
to be happening of any particular significance is that the area between the extreme right
of the main house and the annex is going to be increased to, with the first floor extension.
That's the nub of it. So if we could just move to the finished product around on, you can see that the area in red just incorporates that annex that is there already and fills in, naturally fills in the gap.
Oddly not unlike the previous application that we approved which actually had a filler section in it.
And we can see in my personal view on the left hand side of the picture,
the proposed roofing vastly improves the appearance of the property.
So I think that's a bit of scene setting which hopefully members will appreciate.
It certainly helped me, so thank you for bearing with me.
I'd just like to turn to paragraph 6 .4.
the report on page 65, it mentions here the proposal would result in the loss of
a dwelling house. Well technically I suppose yes but it's the same people
gonna be in the same space it's just gonna have a roof on it that bigger than
it is now and the suggestion that this would impact be impacted by our failure
to have a five -year housing land supply.
I have challenged at times where officers have suggested
that the provision of 20 houses would have an impact
on the five -year housing land supply.
But really, our officers trying to tell us
that the loss of one property,
or rather the incorporation of one property
within another, amounts to further diminish the supply
of housing within Ellsbury Vale.
I, you know, I don't like to make fun of anybody,
let alone our officers, but really,
I do think that's a stretch.
And I, for one, am not prepared to accept
that that is a valid reason.
And I think it would be laughed at court
and appealed, frankly.
Where do we, where does that get me?
I really, having listened, I've read the report,
I'm sure you all know, I always read the reports in detail.
I can't see that I can support on this occasion
the officer's recommendation.
On the grounds that the proposal
is on the same footprint as occupied
by the existing dwellings,
The appearance is a significant improvement and on that basis I would be prepared to move the acceptance of the application with condition on the landscaping
and I take the officer, I take Laura's indication and confirmation that we wouldn't need a condition
to prevent business because that would not be required. So that's where I sit with it.
I rarely, you know, I know I have once recently complained
about an officer's recommendation,
but regrettably, this is gonna be another time
because I really can't see how we should object to this.
Thank you, Councillor Munger.
Councillor Huxley.
Thank you, Chairman.
Probably doesn't happen often,
but I totally agree with Councillor Munger.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:33:47
But seriously, I think, as Councillor Munger points out, certainly the flat roof situation
is vastly improved and I think the whole property is vastly improved.
and I concur with his, I'd like to second his proposal
and also share with him in the recommendations
regarding conditions, please.
Thank you, Councillor Hoxie.
Councillor Conlon.
I do tend to agree, but if we do agree that this goes through
I think we have to really be quite stringent
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:34:31
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 4:34:33
on conditions. That's right. Thank you very much. Brain stopped because it's been long.
But like we have to have some tree planting, some landscaping, and generally sort of making
it look a bit better. And yes, I think it's better than it does at the moment.
I think I just refer everybody to the last page, page 69. If the application is approved,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:35:02
these conditions should be applied single -use C3 dwelling house only. No
commercial vehicle operating on site. Privacy protection to flush floor
windows and balconies. No additional balconies or windows without
permission. External lighting condition. Construction traffic management plan.
access turning condition, tree landscape scheme, ecology enhancement and
mitigation and removal of permitted development rights.
Chair, if I may, they were the conditions recommended within the representations received from
from neighbours. They're not recommended by officers and so while some of those
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:35:54
might be relevant, they were not prescribed by officers.
OK, so that's a continuation of the representations, letters
of objection, summarised below.
It is indeed.
So once again, would it be something
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:36:05
that you would want officers to resolve conditions
in consultation with yourself, taking
on board general concerns of the committee today?
Yes.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 4:36:13
And would that be acceptable?
Councillor Munger, would you accept
that we need to put some conditions on this.
Not as worded on page 69, but I would be happy to provide recommendations from the officers
on the conditions that would reflect those concerns.
Thank you.
Would the proposer amend the recommendations so that conditions were resolved by officers
in consultation with the chair?
And would the seconder be in agreement with that amendment?
And are officers content that how the balancing would be applied
in light of the members' comments?
Councillor Harsane, did you want to come in?
It's been a long night.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:37:21
I cannot agree more with Councillor Monge and Councillor Huxley and Councillor Cornell
that the conditions are important, especially as to landscaping, to reassure the parish
Council and the neighbour to get some screening back,
because I believe the width is not a problem here.
And the fact is, what we haven't discussed,
the fact is the plot is quite a big plot.
And at the moment, it looks a mess.
And I would hope that the applicants take away
from this that they clear up that mess by taking away
all those extant little sheds and things
that we saw in the photograph on the plans,
as the previous applicant did in the other one agreed to do.
And as Councillor Munger said,
it actually driving past this,
it would be actually an improvement
rather than two single properties.
So I support Councillor Munger and Councillor Hurd.
Thank you.
Councillor Stutchbury.
Yeah, I'd like to thank the officer for the report.
I'd like to thank Councillor Munger.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:38:32
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:38:34
the way that he did the analysis changed my view on it. Because I wasn't there,
it wasn't my view at that point and the fact the logical way that he went
through the changes was very helpful to me. It's been a long afternoon and I thank
him for that. I wasn't minded to be honest, I wasn't minded to go with it
until I explained to me I wasn't on that path trajectory. But I do think that the points that
this building will look better than it does in this case through having some work to it,
it's got value. And I think if one thing I would ask, it might not be something that we can do,
I don't know which member raised it about the speed of the road and and
which going past it now not only were the if there can be something done to
look at widening the fissure sprays as you come into that property because
remember the people might be leaving it of a danger but other people coming on
that road will also be in danger so I think something needs to be done to look
at the visual sprays to make it safe to get in and out of so that everybody who's near
that property, you buy that property, doesn't get that side swipe because you try and get
out onto a 60 mile an hour road. It's not easy and it's enough that which member was
either Lou or Phil said about the speed of the road being 60, one of you did. And I think
we do need to take that into consideration because we must make sure it's done because
they won't own the property forever it may get sold on in 10 years 15 years
time we need to make sure that that safety is done so if I can answer that
to be added I'd be comfortable then because that was one of the reasons I
was quite negative about it was the amount of traffic in and out but my
mind's been changed by Lou to be honest don't take that as a it always happened Lou
but it did today.
Thank you, Councillor Gaughan.
So, I will round up with some comments,
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:40:45
which I'm sure is gonna annoy a few people,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:40:48
but I side with the officers,
because when we were listening to the application
earlier on, the one at Holker,
most people were saying, my God,
site that size is gross for the area,
or basically like that anyway,
and weren't seeing that.
It will improve.
I won't disagree that it will improve the property as such.
And as Councillor Stuckey was worried about,
traffic going out, you know, being sites,
where there's an entrance in, entrance out,
and it is quite good, but yeah, widening the space.
But sadly to the applicant, I don't agree that.
It's been going to be quite an impact within that village,
but I'm going to be outmanoeuvred anyway.
so I'm still speaking my mind but there we go. Thank you and Councillor
Stutchbury I just want to go back to sometimes we as Chairman can be forced
into not letting people have their say. I'm a firm believer that if people come
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:41:48
and sit on a committee as we've done today for over five hours the least a
Chairman should do is give them the opportunity to speak on every application.
On that note, I have a proposal from Councillor Munger which is to recommend approval against
the officers' recommendations, subject to conditions agreed with the officers and myself
as Chairman.
That proposal is seconded by Councillor Huxley and therefore I ask for a vote in favour.
No.
Abstain?
1.
The application is approved.
Mr. Chairman, can I just commend as a substitute on this committee that although it's been
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:42:56
a long day, you have run the committee excellently and I believe your facility to give everyone
a chance to speak has been very helpful.
And can I also commend the officers for their advice and their reports.
And I said earlier and I double up on Officer Pearson's very astute information and advice
you gave to the committee and thank the officers Souta as well and of course our
legal representative for steering us through these tricky waters.
Councillor Hussain that's very kind. Okay so we've taken the vote the application
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:43:33
is approved. Thank you members and thank you officers it's been a long day but we
did what we come here to do and it's our duty to do it and it's our duty to give
it our full dedication. I'm sure the applicants here today and people
watching on webcam will understand that we've done our job. Thank you all. Safe
journey home. Our next meeting is on the 13th of May 2026. I declare the meeting

8 Date of the Next Meeting

closed at approximately 8 minutes past 7pm.
Safe journey, thank you very much and good night.