Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 13 May 2026, 2:00pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 13th May 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Harry Thomas
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Chris Poll
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Cllr Phil Gomm
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Faye Hudson
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Public Speakers
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  5. Cllr Phil Gomm
  6. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  7. Public Speakers
  8. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  13. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  14. Public Speakers
  15. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  16. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  17. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  18. Cllr Chris Poll
  19. Public Speakers
  20. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  21. Cllr Gregory Smith
  22. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  23. Cllr Phil Gomm
  24. Public Speakers
  25. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  26. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  27. Public Speakers
  28. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  29. Cllr Raj Khan
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  34. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  35. Public Speakers
  36. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  37. Public Speakers
  38. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  39. Public Speakers
  40. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  43. Cllr Chris Poll
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Chris Poll
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Frank Mahon
  48. Public Speakers
  49. Cllr Frank Mahon
  50. Public Speakers
  51. Cllr Frank Mahon
  52. Cllr Phil Gomm
  53. Public Speakers
  54. Cllr Phil Gomm
  55. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  56. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  57. Public Speakers
  58. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  59. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  60. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  61. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  62. Public Speakers
  63. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  64. Cllr Raj Khan
  65. Public Speakers
  66. Cllr Raj Khan
  67. Public Speakers
  68. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  69. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  70. Public Speakers
  71. Cllr Gregory Smith
  72. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  73. Cllr Phil Gomm
  74. Public Speakers
  75. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  76. Public Speakers
  77. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  78. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  79. Public Speakers
  80. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  81. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  82. Cllr Phil Gomm
  83. Public Speakers
  84. Cllr Chris Poll
  85. Public Speakers
  86. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  87. Public Speakers
  88. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  89. Cllr Frank Mahon
  90. Cllr Phil Gomm
  91. Public Speakers
  92. Cllr Phil Gomm
  93. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  94. Public Speakers
  95. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  96. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  97. Public Speakers
  98. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  99. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  100. Cllr Andy Huxley
  101. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  102. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  103. Public Speakers
  104. Cllr Raj Khan
  105. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  106. Cllr Raj Khan
  107. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  108. Public Speakers
  109. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  110. Cllr Frank Mahon
  111. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  112. Cllr Chris Poll
  113. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  114. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  115. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  116. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  117. Cllr Chris Poll
  118. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  119. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  120. Cllr Chris Poll
  121. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  122. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  123. Cllr Chris Poll
  124. Cllr Phil Gomm
  125. Faye Hudson
  126. Cllr Phil Gomm
  127. Faye Hudson
  128. Cllr Phil Gomm
  129. Faye Hudson
  130. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  131. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  132. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  133. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  134. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  135. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  136. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  137. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  138. Cllr Andy Huxley
  139. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  140. Cllr Andy Huxley
  141. Cllr Gregory Smith
  142. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  143. Cllr Chris Poll
  144. Faye Hudson
  145. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  146. Cllr Chris Poll
  147. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  148. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  149. Faye Hudson
  150. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  151. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  152. Cllr Frank Mahon
  153. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  154. Cllr Frank Mahon
  155. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  156. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  157. Cllr Frank Mahon
  158. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  159. Cllr Raj Khan
  160. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  161. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  162. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  163. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  164. Cllr Raj Khan
  165. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  166. Cllr Raj Khan
  167. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  168. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  169. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  170. Cllr Gregory Smith
  171. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  172. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  173. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  174. Cllr Phil Gomm
  175. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  176. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  177. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  178. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  179. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  180. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  181. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  182. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  183. Cllr Raj Khan
  184. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  185. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  186. Cllr Raj Khan
  187. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  188. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  189. Cllr Chris Poll
  190. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  191. Cllr Phil Gomm
  192. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  193. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  194. Cllr Frank Mahon
  195. Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer
  196. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  197. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  198. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  199. Cllr Phil Gomm
  200. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  201. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  202. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  203. Cllr Raj Khan
  204. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  205. Cllr Chris Poll
  206. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  207. Cllr Chris Poll
  208. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  209. Cllr Chris Poll
  210. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  211. Cllr Chris Poll
  212. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  213. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  214. Cllr Frank Mahon
  215. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  216. Cllr Raj Khan
  217. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  218. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  219. Cllr Raj Khan
  220. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  221. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  222. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Lsura Waterton - Principal Planning Consultant
  3. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  7. Cllr Chris Poll
  8. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Gregory Smith
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  13. Public Speakers
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  16. Cllr Frank Mahon
  17. Public Speakers
  18. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  19. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Phil Gomm
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Phil Gomm
  24. Public Speakers
  25. Cllr Phil Gomm
  26. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  27. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Raj Khan
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  34. Public Speakers
  35. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  36. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  37. Public Speakers
  38. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  39. Public Speakers
  40. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  41. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  42. Public Speakers
  43. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Gregory Smith
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  48. Cllr Phil Gomm
  49. Public Speakers
  50. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  51. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  52. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  53. Public Speakers
  54. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  55. Cllr Gregory Smith
  56. Public Speakers
  57. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  58. Public Speakers
  59. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  60. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  61. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  62. Public Speakers
  63. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  64. Public Speakers
  65. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  66. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  67. Public Speakers
  68. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  69. Cllr Phil Gomm
  70. Public Speakers
  71. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  72. Cllr Chris Poll
  73. Public Speakers
  74. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  75. Public Speakers
  76. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  77. Cllr Gregory Smith
  78. Public Speakers
  79. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  80. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  81. Public Speakers
  82. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  83. Public Speakers
  84. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  85. Cllr Phil Gomm
  86. Public Speakers
  87. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  88. Public Speakers
  89. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  90. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  91. Public Speakers
  92. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  93. Public Speakers
  94. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  95. Public Speakers
  96. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  97. Cllr Gregory Smith
  98. Public Speakers
  99. Cllr Gregory Smith
  100. Public Speakers
  101. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  102. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  103. Public Speakers
  104. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  105. Cllr Raj Khan
  106. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Cllr Chris Poll
  3. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  4. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  5. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  6. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  7. Cllr Gregory Smith
  8. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  9. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  11. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  12. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  13. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  16. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  17. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  18. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  19. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  20. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  21. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  22. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  23. Cllr Phil Gomm
  24. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  25. Cllr Phil Gomm
  26. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  27. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  28. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  29. Cllr Gregory Smith
  30. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  31. Cllr Frank Mahon
  32. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  33. Cllr Frank Mahon
  34. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  35. Cllr Frank Mahon
  36. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  37. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  38. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  39. Cllr Raj Khan
  40. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  41. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  42. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  43. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  44. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  45. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  46. Cllr Phil Gomm
  47. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  48. Cllr Andy Huxley
  49. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  50. Cllr Chris Poll
  51. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  52. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  53. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  54. Cllr Gregory Smith
  55. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  56. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  57. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  58. Cllr Raj Khan
  59. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  60. Cllr Raj Khan
  61. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  62. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  63. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  64. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  65. Cllr Raj Khan
  66. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  67. Cllr Chris Poll
  68. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  69. Cllr Chris Poll
  70. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  71. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer
  3. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  4. Public Speakers
  5. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  6. Cllr Phil Gomm
  7. Public Speakers
  8. Cllr Phil Gomm
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  13. Cllr Gregory Smith
  14. Public Speakers
  15. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  18. Public Speakers
  19. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  24. Public Speakers
  25. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  26. Cllr Chris Poll
  27. Public Speakers
  28. Cllr Chris Poll
  29. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  34. Cllr Frank Mahon
  35. Public Speakers
  36. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  37. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  38. Public Speakers
  39. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  40. Public Speakers
  41. Cllr Phil Gomm
  42. Public Speakers
  43. Cllr Phil Gomm
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  48. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  49. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  50. Cllr Chris Poll
  51. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  52. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  53. Cllr Phil Gomm
  54. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  55. Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer
  56. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  57. Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer
  58. Cllr Chris Poll
  59. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  60. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  61. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  62. Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer
  63. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  64. Cllr Gregory Smith
  65. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  66. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  67. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  68. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  69. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  70. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  71. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  72. Cllr Raj Khan
  73. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  74. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  75. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  76. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  77. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  78. Cllr Phil Gomm
  79. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  80. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  81. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  82. Cllr Chris Poll
  83. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  84. Cllr Andy Huxley
  85. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  86. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  87. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  88. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  89. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  90. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  91. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  92. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  93. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  94. Cllr Niknam Hussain
  95. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  96. Webcast Finished

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00
Let's try that again. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, welcome to this afternoon's Planning
Committee meeting for Central and North Buckinghamshire. A couple of housekeeping parts initially.
Today's meeting will be webcast.
If there's any members of the public there do not wish to be on the webcast or have the cameras on them,
please can you make yourself known to Harry at the end there who will let you know where to sit.
Webcasting is used within the council quite a lot and we use it and can repeat it on other occasions.
Also, can I make sure that you have your mobile phones switched off or on silent?
And if you are public speaking, the public speaking table is front of you here,
and I will call you up to speak.
And the clock behind me will indicate the duration of your conversation.
This afternoon we're supported by members of the Council and to my far left we have
Faye Hudson who is the presenting officer for the first application.
Next to her is Laura Pearson who is a senior planning manager.
To my right I have Kathy Stubbs who is our corporate lawyer and will try and keep me
on the straight and narrow.
And to the right of Cathy is Harry Thomas,
who is supporting us as a committee.
Right, can I go to the agenda?
Do we have any apologies?

1 Apologies

Yes, we've got apologies from Councillor Munger
and Councillor Hussain is sitting in place of him today.
Mr Harry Thomas - 0:02:06
Okay, thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:10
Can I take an opportunity to welcome Councillor Carman back
and it's good to see you looking so well.
Here, here.
Right there.
Thank you.
Right, could I ask for your consent to the minutes of the 22nd of April?

2 Minutes

Thank you very much.
Are there any declarations of interest?
Councillor Paul. Thank you Chairman. I am one of the members that called in item
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:02:53
four, the Pitstone application. I should point out that at no time have I
expressed an opinion other than remaining neutral. Okay thank you.

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:01
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:03:08
Councillor Gibbons. I called in item five and also supported
decalling item six by my colleague but I just want to reassure everybody that I
remained open -minded and have absolutely no peace of term with you. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:24
Thanks Gordon. As always Chairman, just declaring as you know I'm a farmer land
owner I own land in Bearton to declare and I also know that farm when I was a
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:35
boy which was quite some years ago and I used to work there as well so just
declaring that I do come open with a very open mind in this application.
That's good. Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:46
Can I just confirm for the first case we're going to hear this afternoon that
the following speakers are in the room. Councillor Brescia.
Kirsty Weber. Yes. Thank you.
Doug Harrison. Yes. Thank you. Joanne Hinder.
No?
And Paul Grimstedt?
Yes.
Thank you.
In that case now we'll go to the first application which is for land off of Chennington Road, Pitstone.

4 PL/25/4416/FA - Land Off, Cheddington Road, Pitstone, Buckinghamshire

Colleagues, I just remind you this is a full application, whereas as you know the
designation of applications has changed recently, so this is a full application
for us to consider. With that I would like to ask Faye Hudson to introduce it.
Faye Hudson - 0:04:53
Thank you Chairman. So the application site refers to a parcel of land located
to the west of the village of Pitstone to north of Cheddington Road which is circled in red on the
slide. Much of Pitstone is located to the east and south and the site area measures approximately
0.18 hectares in size and the site currently benefits from an existing access onto Cheddington Road.
So the application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a new self -built dwelling and
detached double garage.
And the application is being referred
to the Central and North Buckinghamshire
Area Planning Committee at the request
of the two ward councillors for the area
and Pittstone Parish Council
in line with the council's constitution.
So this slide shows you the constraints of the site.
The site is bounded by residential development
to the east along Chequers Lane.
To the south is Chaddington Road
with residential development beyond.
To the north are open fields
and to the west is a former farmstead including three grade two listed buildings and those are
shown in red on the slide. The site falls within a mineral safeguarding area and an amber great
crested newt impact risk zone and the site is also within the Chiltern beach with special area
of conservation zone of influence. So this plan shown on the slide is the proposed site plan
submitted in support of the application.
The proposed dwelling is L -shaped
with a detached double garage set back
to the rear of the site with a new gravel driveway.
New tree planting is proposed to the front of the site
and a new hedge is proposed to create the rear boundary.
This slide shows you the floor pans
for the proposed four bed dwelling.
This slide provides you with the front and west elevation of the proposed dwelling.
The dwelling would be mainly one and a half storeys in height with a small dormer window
at first floor level.
And a small single storey projection is located to the rear, which is to be timber clad and
the dormer windows will also be clad.
And the proposed materials are shown on the screen for reference.
And again, this is the rear and east elevation of the dwelling.
Proposed materials are on the side again for you.
And this slide shows the plans for the proposed detached double garage with a small plant
room to the side and solar panels on the roof.
The garage will be located to the rear of the dwelling in the northwest corner of the
site.
So as set out in the officer's report in Paragoss 25 to 28,
there is a recent appeal decision on this site
for the erection of a dwelling and a garage.
This appeal was dismissed for two reasons,
one of which was the impact of the development on the character
and appearance of the area.
In comparing the two schemes,
officers note the significant differences
between the two proposals.
As shown on the slide, the previous proposal sought
permission for a much deeper site measuring approximately
70 metres back from the road. In comparison, the current scheme seeks permission for a
more contained site and that measures 45 metres.
So on this slide are the site plans for both schemes. The previous proposal sought permission
for a much larger and more sprawling dwelling and that measured approximately 290 square
in footprint and it had a width of 21 metres.
The garage proposed was 80 square metres
and it was located to the front of the dwelling.
In comparison, the current scheme is for a dwelling
measuring approximately 175 square metres in footprint
and a width of 14 metres.
And the proposed garage is now located to the rear
of the site with a footprint of 55 square metres.
In addition, the overall layout of the site has now changed
to allow for the dwelling to be located more centrally
within the sites and the garage has been set back into the northwest corner.
So these are the front elevations from both schemes.
So the previous dwelling, as I said before, was going to be 21 metres in width.
The current scheme measures 14.
The proposed dwelling would remain at a similar height to that previously proposed, but it's
been reconfigured to appear as a smaller mass and bulk.
And then they are the rear elevations, previous scheme on the top, proposed on the bottom.
And then these are the side elevations with the previous scheme on the left, current scheme
on the right.
As set out in the officer's report, officers are satisfied that the proposed dwelling would
not dominate the plot compared to the previous scheme, and the proposed dwelling would be
a more modestly sized building in the context of dwellings in the vicinity when compared
to what was proposed previously.
So just for awareness,
there was another appeal on this site
for the erection of one new dwelling and garage
and formation of a new access.
And that appeal is from 2017.
So the more recent appeal from 2022
has been referenced in detail
within the case officer report.
But I wish to draw your attention to this appeal
and the comments made by the inspector
in describing the site.
So the inspector describes the site
as being divorced from the open farmlands to the north
by mature trees and hedging with development on the Eastern, Southern and Western boundaries.
In their judgement that when standing at the appeal site there was a sense of being within
the village rather than in the open countryside.
In terms of the site's contribution to the setting and significance of the adjacent heritage
assets the inspector considered that the site may once have been an integral part of Orchard
Farm but the sense of how it might have operated has diminished due to the conversion of outbuildings
within the setting of the farmstead.
there is no obvious physical connexion between the appeal site and the listed
building. The inspector therefore concluded that the appeal site does not
make any contribution to the heritage significance of the listed building. The
singular reason this appeal was ultimately dismissed was due to the
adoption of the Pittstone neighbourhood plan in early 2016 which set a
neighbourhood plan boundary and the appeal site fell outside of this but the
inspector found no harm to the character and appearance of the area nor harm to
any heritage assets.
So just to provide you with some photographs of the site,
this shows you the existing access point into the site
from Cheddington Road.
And then you've got the view looking west
along the front boundary from the access.
And then looking east from the access point
along the front boundary,
and you can just see the roof of number one, Checkers Lane.
Let's see if this works.
It does not, apologies,
but you can just about see the roof in the back of that photo, just visible above the hedge line.
And then, so this photo is looking along the western boundary inside the site,
and the existing small brick store building is just visible on the left -hand side.
This photo gives you the view from the access point into the middle of the site.
And then you've got this one looking along the eastern boundary inside the site.
Again, you can see number one, Chequers Lane, just beyond the existing planting there along
the eastern boundary.
So this view provides, this photo, sorry, provides a view of the front boundary again,
and you're looking out of the village at this point, so the red arrow just provides a reference
point as to where the access is.
And then again, so we're looking back into the village at this point, red arrow provides
you the access point and the blue arrow is where the entrance to Orchard Farm is located.
So I'd just like to draw your attention to another application for residential development
along Chaddington Road and this seeks permission for the construction of three self -built detached
dwellings and vehicular access together with associated hard standing and landscaping works.
This application is shown in yellow on the slide so it sits to the west of the application
currently being determined.
The application shown in yellow is currently recommended
for approval subject to the completion
of a legal agreement to secure the appropriate mitigation
for the Chiltern Beachwood sack.
So just to conclude,
in respect to the overall balancing exercise,
taking account of the weighing and balancing of matters
set out in the officer's report
and the housing land supply position
for the Aylesbury Vale area,
it is considered that the adverse impacts
which have been identified do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits of the scheme. As such the application is recommended for approval
subject to conditions entry into the district licencing scheme for great
crested newts and the completion of a legal agreement to secure mitigation for
the Chiltern Beechwood sack. Thank you Chairman. Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:13:57
Can I call our first witness Councillor Brazier.
Councillor Bridge, I don't need to tell you the full form for this afternoon.
You'll see a indicator behind me.
I'll give you three minutes to make your presentation.
If you don't mind remaining seated for any points of clarification at the end.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jim.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
Public Speakers - 0:14:31
Pitstone was a village of about 950 houses when the castle cement works closed just before the turn of the century.
That left an area of land that needed to be dealt with.
The section of that land was allocated for housing and over the last 25 years, over 600 houses have been added to the village.
In the midst of this development, Pitstone were encouraged to make a neighbourhood plan.
They did this starting in 2013 and the plan being made in 2016.
It was curated whilst all this development was taking place, and so the neighbourhood plan was carefully designed to take into account all of this expansion.
Over 23 ,000 pounds was spent on it, and thousands of volunteer hours put into making the plan.
This application is proposing to smash one of the principal foundations of the neighbourhood plan, its number one policy, the settlement boundary.
I'm told an awful lot of effort went into engineering of the boundary to make it do
what it needs to do, even to the point of discussing whether or not to include or exclude
some people's rear gardens.
It was not the work of a moment.
Pitstone is a well -run parish council with an organised planning subcommittee.
When the committee met to discuss this application, unusually members of the public were present,
with their primary concern being the breach of the settlement boundary and the loss of
open land that contributes to defining form and character of Pittstone village.
And I'm glad to see so many of the residents are here today.
So what's the point of a neighbourhood plan if its policies are then simply given such
a little weight?
The scales measuring this tilted balance we keep hearing about may need recalibrating.
This is the main reason I've called it into committee, proposing to breach
the boundary for one house.
And this one house is inconsequential to the five year housing supply, but
that will cause considerable irreversible harm
to the neighbourhood plan.
Once breached, you cannot go back.
As we've seen, already waiting in the wings
is a parcel of land to the west.
An application for three houses is live now,
and we're here heading for approval.
You should refuse this application to save Pitstones
and everybody's neighbourhood plan
from being rendered impotent.
There are other issues you'll hear about,
and I've got some time.
I just want to expand on,
we've heard about the two appeals that have already been happened on this site.
There is, there is in fact more, this site's got a long history.
It starts in 1980 for application for a house was on there. That was refused.
In 1992, another house was refused, appealed and dismissed.
In 2013 it was refused. In 2015, as we've heard, it was refused,
appealed and dismissed. And most recently in 2021,
appealed for non determination and that was dismissed.
This is not suitable for development even without consideration of the
neighbourhood plan. The neighbourhood plan must be respected. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:17:25
Thank you very much. Any points of clarification?
Thank you very much Chairman. If you could just clarify you refer to the neighbourhood plan
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:17:42
quite a few times.
Sadly, we don't have an example of the neighbourhood plan
for us to look at.
But could you explain from,
could you bring up the bigger picture please
of the site of the first proposed?
Okay, could you show us where the line
of the neighbourhood plan goes please?
Roughly to that area.
So, just saying this.
I don't have access to that,
but it's to the right and below it.
It's outside the neighbourhood plan boundary.
I've got a paper copy here,
but I can't share that with everybody.
We'll take that up in technical, Ganser Con.
Okay, thank you very much.
That's the only question I've got so far then.
Thank you.
Ganser, are you saying?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:18:34
One similar question is where does the boundary
of the village be drawn in the neighbourhood plan.
And you're saying it's to the right,
but there's a comment that there's properties
you can see in there on the left of this site.
And this site looks like an infill site.
And I'm just asking, how does that,
and you've already outlined in your presentation
that there's already a plan, a planning extent
for three houses to the plot to the left of it.
Which is also outside the boundary of the plan.
So that's one, can you expand on that?
So that is outside as well.
Yes, which is why I'm so worried about the loss
Public Speakers - 0:19:17
of the protection that this neighbourhood boundary gives us.
And there's another three coming,
and you can see what's gonna happen.
Slowly, slowly encroachment.
And the settlement to the left of that picture
It's called Cook's Wolf and they will coalesce very quickly.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:19:42
Just to clarify, what we're afraid of here is the Nairbo Plan gives you a buffer
and gives you clarity as to where the village ends.
And what you're saying is this may start the process of coalescence
with the habitation to the letoffs up there.
Yes, exactly. That's why I concentrated my presentation on the neighbourhood plan.
Public Speakers - 0:20:05
And it's a good neighbourhood plan. As I said, it wasn't the work of the moment.
They spent an awful lot of time and money getting it right.
This proposal and the one that was mentioned for the three houses next to it is outside of the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary.
So just can I clarify, did you say the neighbourhood plan was made in 2015?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:20:29
2016.
So it's out of date?
Sorry?
So it's out of date?
Public Speakers - 0:20:39
Well no, it's 2013 to 2033.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:20:49
I'll pick that up under technical because I can't really say I agree with you, we just
need to know exactly where the boundary is. Yeah yeah.
Lots of screen at the moment. Okay thank you.
Councillor Stutzmey. Firstly thank you for coming and part of my question has been
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:21:14
answered in the sense that the plans, the historic plan. You will be aware of the
policies in the value of hours plan D3 and you mentioned the value of
plan and the small -scale policies and D3 and then there was another policy B
B2 in the value of plan. How do you feel the value of your plan policies which
clearly were brought into, took a long time for the value of the algae plan to happen,
but they came into a mission in light of the fact that you stated that the plan
is what they call an historic plan, not been updated. How do you feel those
policies lined up with the statements about and the concerns about the loss of
the open space and because those policies state about small developments
being so much permitted which is in the officer's report. I hope you're able to
I haven't got the plan in front of me.
I have worked on a neighbourhood plan,
so I understand the importance of neighbourhood plans.
I'm going to have trouble putting all those references together,
because I don't know off the top of my head what they are.
But the key issue for me here is this is just one dwelling.
Public Speakers - 0:22:35
It's not going to put any kind of dent in our five -year hand
or the 95 ,000 homes that are being imposed on us.
This, the issue for me here is that we're threatening
the substantialness of a neighbourhood plan,
which we shouldn't be doing, in my opinion.
Neighbourhood plans should be much more
substantial than this.
Okay, just coming back on those points,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:06
Council is saying we've got a plan
and we're gonna put it up under technical.
Is that okay? Yeah, so we know exactly what he's talking about.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:23:17
Just go back Chairman, what I was trying to do Councillor was because the expressions that you were making were the concerns which were policy BE2 of the Vale of Algae Plan
which is about characteristics in developments in local sites and I was hoping that by saying that it would trigger a lot more substantive response to your concerns
which they were expressed around the loss of the open space.
But that's in the actual report and it's in the veiled plan.
That one policy which I thought was linked to what you said.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:58
Okay, we picked those two areas up under technical because we'll look at it
from the current plan, the old plan, the veil of else we plan, which is a later plan,
and we can see the two.
Thank you.
Councillor
Paul.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:24:16
Many of the questions I have are probably better asked
by the, answered by the parish council,
but I do have one.
I mean, there is a very clearly to the east,
northeast of the site settlement boundary.
I know that that is where the settlement boundary is,
along Chequers Lane.
I'm looking at a larger image than that one
so you can see the definite line.
And that's the line that's been chosen, as you showed
on your illustration there.
It's being argued that this has development on three sides,
although the two Grade II listed properties to the west,
obviously been there a great number of years.
What interests me is to the south, are you aware of when the close, and I think it is
Chequers close, when those properties were constructed, what sort of properties they
are?
Because they are one side of what is being presented in the report as three sides of
development around this site.
I can't answer the question as to when they were built.
Public Speakers - 0:25:37
I know that it's a fairly open development of detached and semi -detached houses.
I think when Councillor Weber presents, he may be able to give you better detail on that
close.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:52
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:25:58
I might have to come back to the as a technical question on this
But I was just curious to know if this if you know whether this was put forward in the call for sites for development
this bit of land
No, it wasn't
Okay, thank you
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:26:17
Castle bomb
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:26:21
Thanks for allowing me to come back chairman and you refer to this David plan
we'll keep going back to the neighbourhood, but when you talk about preserving open green
space, which this clearly is, I don't know if this is going to be down to you or if I
ask a parish councillor if we could dig into that slightly because this is the green space
you tried to preserve. Is that farmed? It looks like it's still farmed, agricultural
land, because I'm getting a little bit technical myself here, Chairman, for looking at those
pictures it looks like a tract.
Can I just stop? Please don't interfere while we're speaking.
Sorry. Okay?
I don't want to... We're asking Councillor Brazier the point.
We're not expecting somebody from the audience to be helping.
It's your opportunity to tell us what you know. Thank you. Sorry.
Fucking told off then Chairman.
Not you, not you.
So you're all about preserving green space.
I'm trying to establish, you know the area,
So is it agricultural farmland?
I'm saying it looks like it,
so I'm asking you if you could clarify that.
Or I'll save that question to some of the parish councils,
because to me it looks like there's tracks,
tracks going there to the left -hand side.
So I'm just trying to,
and is all that land owned by one person, would that,
if a house goes there, would it block that area?
Yes, it is farmland, and you're right,
Public Speakers - 0:27:42
it's got a normal farm entrance, but you're right,
ask the parish counsellor.
As for who owns it, I don't know.
Again, ask the parish counsellor.
Thank you for allowing me to ask that question.
Okay, thank you.
Dr Gibbon.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:27:57
I noticed that on this report here that Natural England
said it would have a harmful effect
on the area of conservation
and also Heritage weren't happy about it either.
Could you say what the main reasons were
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:28:10
for refusing the previous applications in that area?
Public Speakers - 0:28:17
I'm afraid I haven't studied the previous refusals, but the reasons were many.
And yes, it's open farmland, it's open land.
It's described within the neighbourhood plan as being so,
and it provides a barrier to that coalescence of sprawl.
Sorry, I can't be more precise in an answer.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:28:39
Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.
Councillor Wager, thank you.
Councillor Cahn? Sorry.
You got in late there, Councillor Cahn.
Good afternoon.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:28:53
First of all, I'd like to say a big thank you to all those people who are here today,
because it really means a lot when locals care enough about their community and what happens.
But my question is are you fearful of cumulative development happening in the future or is
it on now?
And secondly, should this committee decide to accept your view and oppose this, what
grounds do you think the Council would be looking at?
Because one of the problems we've got, we have to deal with things on the merit of every
application by itself.
So if you was to offer your opinion, and I'd like to hear your opinion,
what ground would you be looking at for us to make our deliberation in the debate we will have to follow?
Public Speakers - 0:29:47
Thank you. Yeah, accumulation is always a problem and I understand this committee has to look at things in isolation,
but it was very useful that the officer put up the neighbouring development,
because that's just the trigger for cumulative impact.
And my ward is pretty much entirely rural like this,
and it's always a threat and a worry
that cumulative things will happen.
There's a space to the north of it,
which I think we're worried about.
Thank you for recognising the fact
that people come along to this committee.
I find it very important, too.
you were asking for reasons and I think my presentation pretty much solidly
concentrated on the weight of the neighbourhood plan being balanced
against the lack of a five -year housing supply and while I get that I mean the
five -year housing supply is caused by developers not it's not something the
Council's done wrong, but I don't believe this one house
breaking the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary
should carry that much weight that it destroys
the neighbourhood plan.
And potentially every neighbourhood plan we have
in this county, hundreds of them, are important things
that we spent a lot of time encouraging parishes
and town councils to take on board and develop
and work on. So I feel very strongly about neighbourhood plans. Okay thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:31:32
I'm going to another area but I won't at the moment. Councillor Wager thank you for your time.
Thank you. Right can I now call on Councillor Weber please.
Again, Councillor Weber, you have three minutes to make your presentation. You'll see the
Public Speakers - 0:32:17
clock behind me, so that will count you down. Good afternoon. I'm Chris Weber, Chair of
Pittstone's Planning Committee. This application raises fundamental points of principle. Yes,
for Pittstone but also for neighbourhood planning across the whole of Bucks. It's
got far wider implications than just one house. Pittstone's neighbourhood plan is
not out of date. It is the up -to -date statement of adopted planning policy at
neighbourhood level. Its bedrock is a carefully crafted settlement boundary
designed to protect Pittstone's rural character and avoid urban sprawl. We
support appropriate development within our SP but if applications outside are
allowed, its very integrity is lost. There's now one for three houses in the field adjacent
to this one, threatening ribbon development along Cheddington Road and coalescence with
Cooksworth. Another larger application, a stone's throw away, risks coalescence with
Ivanhoe. Allowing just one house makes no difference to housing targets but pierces
the settlement boundary. Once breached, it's breached. Floodgates. The line must be drawn
somewhere and the line has already been drawn. It's clearly defined in our
neighbourhood plan very carefully and has the overwhelming support of the local
community. The boundary as drawn follows the natural settlement line on the
ground too. The report says that this application would consolidate the
existing settlement pattern but that is simply not the case. The village has
already stopped by this point, even the pavement has petered out. After that
there's only scattered and sporadic development. This would be a prominent
dwelling in what's currently an open location with views into open countryside. Per the
inspector in 2021, a parcel of undeveloped pasture with a distinctly rural appearance.
Your own heritage officer says it would erode the setting of nearby rural listed buildings.
It doesn't matter if it's better than the previous application, it would still be entirely
inconsistent with the whole character of the surrounding area.
As for housing numbers, we all know there's no five -year land supply.
But what's been said, with all due respect, beggars belief.
The office has emailed seeking to persuade Councillor Brazier to withdraw the call in.
This will provide much needed housing towards the Council's five -year land supply deficit.
In the report itself, a significant benefit to the housing supply contribution.
That is just not the case. This is one house.
It won't make a jot of difference, which means housing supply is an irrelevant consideration,
which renders a decision flawed, which means the decision is susceptible to challenge,
but more importantly reflects extremely badly on the decision maker.
What is relevant in material is the planning history of the site.
Permission refused seven times since 1980.
The same arguments repeatedly rehearsed, the same reasons repeatedly given.
Seven occasions, 45 years, consistent refusal.
The final word should go to the applicants. Yes, the applicants.
Before owning the site, they objected quite strongly to the proposal to develop it.
Thank you very much. Any points of clarification?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:35:26
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:35:39
I want to emphasise because you've said it and you've asked the question a few times,
just to emphasise the current neighbourhood plan is active.
So it's not lapsed, number one.
2013.
Number two, in that neighbourhood plan the boundary is on this map, where?
Public Speakers - 0:36:11
So it is to, as you were looking at the map previously, it is to the right and to the
south of the application site.
It then wraps around, as you can see, to the left and below the new little enclave of houses.
And you can see without me needing to say anything how carefully that boundary has been drawn to achieve the objectives it was seeking to achieve.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:36:46
And within your plan, which I believe was said to be 2033, is there room for expansion of the village or housing in the village?
Public Speakers - 0:36:56
It has accommodated considerable expansion.
For example, just one example, top right hand corner,
where the red line goes to an apex, there is now development there.
There was out of thought, it accommodated another development,
which in reality is below the yellow block called Tonne -Furlong.
It incorporated, where are we?
Councillor, the point I was trying to prove is that you haven't frozen the village in ASPICC.
No.
This is it, that's it, we're not having no break.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:37:41
And we support appropriate development within the red line.
Public Speakers - 0:37:46
That is an integral part of any network plan.
it's not to block development it's to support and direct it where it's most
appropriate within the community 97 % of which voted in favour of this in 2016.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:38:06
Was the properties opposite? You see the box? Were they there before we did the plan?
Public Speakers - 0:38:17
Yes because they are shown on the map directly opposite the site are three
fairly substantial detached properties. Where is the end of Pitstone village on that plan?
Where the red line shows that it ends. It ends in a different place north and south
of Cheddington Road. It ends in a different place north and south of other roads. It is
a very odd shaped village it ultimately goes in an L and that L so this is the
top bit of the L the downward bit of the L which isn't on the map also has very
odd boundaries. Within that you could see the properties on the other side of the
road are further down Jellington Road. Yes that is just a product of how the
village has developed.
Okay, I'll come back on that.
Council member Pol.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:39:13
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:39:16
Thank you, Chairman.
We're having to share a microphone between three.
I don't know if anybody can help us with another microphone.
So it's really not helpful that that map stops where it does,
because the village of Pitstone that you see
to the north of the B489, I think it is.
There's another piece of the village exactly that size
on what was an industrial estate until the year 2000.
What interests me though, Councillor Weber, please,
as I asked Councillor Brazier,
the settlement boundary naturally forms a curve
around there apart from that tiny little square
that the chairman was just referencing that is let me just be certain cheque is
close correct can you tell me when those properties were built how many there are
Public Speakers - 0:40:19
and when they were built cheque is close ten properties approximately 1955 56 as
I understand it and would they be local authority perhaps houses they are
They are local authority housing.
They, and I caveat this with, or just clarify that they are not directly the opposite of the application site, but they are local authority housing.
So that was an expansion of the village post Second World War, perhaps for returning heroes, the general housing boom of the 40s and 50s.
in accordance with a wider concept plan for pitstone
dating from, I believe, or well, the remainder
was in accordance with a plan dated to 1976.
But yes, this was prior to that.
It was tack on social housing, not in any way
meant derogatively.
Simply at the time, one didn't meld social housing
with non -social housing.
One tacked it on the outside.
And that's what happened there.
Thank you for the clarity there.
Would you know what the result in favour of the neighbourhood plan was in the referendum?
97%.
97%, thank you.
Your planning committee, is that held over email and then approved at a parish council meeting because Councillor Fraser mentioned a sub -committee?
It's probably a glitch in terminology. Some of us call it a committee, some of us call it a subcommittee.
I was ticked off when I last called it a subcommittee because it isn't, it's a planning committee.
It is one and the same thing. We meet generally as part of monthly parish council meetings with a regular slot,
for gender items seven or eight, I can never remember, and for ad hoc, out of the ordinary applications,
we call extraordinary meetings.
Everything is debated at the meeting
other than the clerk sending round notifications
before that there is no extraneous email traffic
relating to any application.
Okay, one more.
Thank you.
So a reference was made about the call for sites
for the future.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:42:37
Now we know that Pitstone has about 950
and has taken another 700 in the last 10 -15 years?
650 probably.
So are you aware of how many properties,
you know, Councillor Hussain said about,
you know, being preserved in Aspic,
how many have been allocated or proposed for Pitstone?
In the call for sites,
Public Speakers - 0:43:07
It is unfortunately, as you say, Councillor, I'm off the map, but the one site that has been proposed to, I believe it's 70, which takes us pretty close to a Dublin in the size of the village.
Okay, thank you. Councillor Mahone.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:43:35
Thank you Mr Chairman. You referenced as did Councillor Brazier the three houses
that left this development. Have you called those in? Yes a call -in request has
Public Speakers - 0:43:54
been made via our two ward members. I don't believe we have heard anything
further. Okay, just one more of a name Mr Chairman, you might not allow this
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:05
question. As you were closing your presentation you referenced
against the applicant and then got cut off?
In what terms?
Public Speakers - 0:44:17
In terms of a formal written objection from the applicant
to one of the previous development applications
for this site of which I have copies if you'd like to see
or I can quote from it.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:33
Thank you very much, that was a good diggy one.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:44:38
So I'm Scott Few, you mentioned during your deliberation about the footway that it diminishes as it goes along there.
Can you tell me where it diminishes? Is there a footway on the left of the road or where does it stop? That's what you said.
So, again this is the staggered nature of Pittstone. Along the north of Cheddington Road
Public Speakers - 0:45:05
it stops before the right turn into Chequers Lane. Now Chequers Lane is the one that goes up.
On the top? Yeah.
The one that... Chequers Lane is going right from that kind of bend in the road.
The footway stops there?
The footway stops there on that side.
On the other side, it has been extended or was extended
to serve the new development in the 50s.
Yeah. Okay.
Okay, and then go back to that last picture, please.
So when we look at that picture showing the neighbourhood
plan, the red line, when you look out where the development
will be, is that little box that we see.
And could you just clarify looking at the map,
it doesn't show everything, but does that Chaddington Road,
Would you concur that that goes into open countryside? Yes. Thank you
And then and then my last question so that's all green spaces. It goes out that direction
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:45:57
Okay, and then my last question but oblige me please chairman. You mentioned a letter an email to the
counsellor from
officers saying to
Pull your pull the calling you mentioned that yes
We haven't seen that chairman
This gentleman mentioned
What's that about?
I have copies if people would like to see them.
We're dealing with it in technical.
Okay, okay. That's all my questions Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:46:23
Thank you very much.
Councillor Givens.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:46:34
You mentioned the neighbourhood plan being up to date, or I can't remember your exact words.
Has it been reviewed or updated since 2016?
It is in the course of being reviewed with the help of external planning consultants.
Public Speakers - 0:46:47
It has not been updated as the dates on the front cover bear witness to 2013 to 2033.
Prior to the current ongoing review, the previous review concluded that nothing further was
necessary and that it remained consistent with the by then subsequently
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:21
adopted veil of Elsby local plan. Okay thank you Councillor Sothby. Thank you. You
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:47:24
referenced the neighbourhood plan so I was going to displace a question on that. When you
drafted your neighbourhood plan I'm presuming it was in keeping with the
adopted Vail of Howardsby plan which started in 2013, eventually adopted in 2021 because
it's relevant to the report. Was your plan's policies in keeping with the policies of the
Vail of Howardsby plan as you drafted it?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:48:02
Because it would have presumably... Sorry Councillor, it predated the Van Rauch
plan. No, it was because those of us who were around,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:48:08
the Van Rauch plan was put out in 2013 for consultation. You started your plan in 2016
when the plan policies and things were out there and you would have presumably had to
have done a plan in keeping with the emerging. Yes. I didn't use the word
emergence, I apologise chair. So it's just for reference when looking at the
policies in there. So I'm presuming that it would have been in keeping with those
policies. Yes absolutely and the professional advice we have from
Public Speakers - 0:48:42
consultants throughout would not have actually you know to the extent that
advisors can steer what their clients do they would not have allowed us to
apart from that because it had to be consistent.
Thank you.
That's enough.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:48:54
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:48:58
Again, I'm going to echo the same thing
what I said to the previous Councillor.
Are you more fearful of the cognitive development?
Second thing is that you said there were seven application
that have been rejected.
Would you say this application is variant
from the previous applications?
And thirdly, the neighbourhood plan is the major issue.
What are we going to do should this committee decide not
to give application?
Are we going to just, from your point of view,
have this place just left vacant altogether?
You know, it's a question that I want to know is
that if it's been rejected seven times and you're now saying,
you know, and you're obviously telling us your position,
Now we will make a debate in what's the best interest with policy.
Should this be rejected again, what is the position of the parish council for the future of this place?
Public Speakers - 0:50:04
Okay, so forgive me, I've probably forgotten the second one of those three.
But in answer to the first, yes, we are fearful of effectively the floodgates effect of piercing
the neighbourhood plan.
So you know the disproportionate impact that one house piercing the settlement boundary
could have on the sanctity, the impotence of the settlement boundary and by definition
being its number one policy and it wasn't numbered one out of accident of
the whole Pittsland neighbourhood plan and as a consequence what that says to
other neighbourhood plan participants in the neighbourhood plan game about what
Buckinghamshire Council feels about community -led planning which it has
always said to us it supports to the hilt. The only way to recognise that is
Is is to give precedence to the neighbourhood planner
So that's question number one. Could you remind me? I am very sorry council can't what question number two?
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:51:15
Yeah, the other is you said there was seven application previously rejected seven rejections rejection
Is this application somewhat different?
Completely different from the past or is it on par to the past but trying to get something in
One
Public Speakers - 0:51:31
So the number, just excuse me, is it four or five applications in total?
One, two, three, one, two, three, four, five. So there have been five applications in total resulting in
seven refusals. One of those applications was for a very small estate of
social housing, the other four have been as far as I recall,
I don't recall the 1981,
but I believe they are all individual dwellings.
In my mind, these are,
this one is completely on a par with those.
It does not matter that this is a slightly smaller house.
It doesn't matter the footprint is slightly smaller.
It is incursion into open countryside.
It is a house on a piece of open pasture land that the inspectors in Bristol say has a distinctly rural feel.
That to my mind makes this on all fours with four of the five previous ones.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:52:42
All of those applications were at a different time, at a different time, and we're operating in a different world now.
The MPPF has changed. The emphasis on it has changed totally because we can't
deliver a five -year land supply. Therefore the balance and paragraph 11
of the MPPF is acted is a presumption in favour and what you say about neighbourhood
plans the officers do take each of them into account against the individual
applications and you can't just say neighbourhood plans aren't helping. They are
But they're taking in context with the applications we have before us.
Okay, the final person is
Councillor Smith.
Oh sorry, Councillor Carneiro next.
Thank you chair.
You referred, Councillor Weber, to the house being very prominent.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:53:34
But from what we've seen on the maps, it's set back with trees at the front.
So it's not going to be a prominent building is it? And also is it arable or pasture land?
Public Speakers - 0:53:48
Okay, so the first limb of the question is entirely subjective. In the parish council's view that would be a prominent dwelling.
In answer to the second, and I think this was Councillor Carnes who answered the question as well and apologies for not getting to number three.
It is pasture land, it variously has sheep and then nothing and then cows and then nothing.
It is surrounded by a stock proof fence and in fact only this week the applicant was beefing up the stock proofing of the fence.
Okay thank you. Thank you very much.
Councillor Smith final question?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:54:30
Thank you chair and really drawing on your experience and the planning committee.
We've heard that previously this parcel of land was subject to a housing application for multiple housing that was rejected.
What's your view about why this wasn't put forward in a call for sites?
I'm sorry, that doesn't relate to this application.
Councillor Gough, last question.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:55:00
Last question Chairman, I promise.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:55:03
So just to go back as my colleague to the left asked about whether it's past year's
past year, but I did ask the question earlier on, is that piece of land associated, could
you go back one picture please?
No, one more.
That's it, that one, lovely.
So, and I noticed there were some tracks there
made by a tractor, quite good.
Could you clarify, I noticed that we got Orchard Farm there.
So is that, where is Orchard Farm?
You obviously know quite a lot about that area.
Is that the property to the left?
Okay, so the labelling on the map is unfortunately
a little bit deceptive because OS can't squeeze the words
in the right place. Orchard Farm is to the left of where it to the left and down a bit
from where it says Orchard Farm. Yes, the massive tract of land where the words Orchard
Farm appear is actually, actually belongs to Yardley Farm. Yardley Farm is huge and
that owns most but not all up to the application site.
Public Speakers - 0:56:21
The application site is the one with, I think,
is that say 106 M in it?
Yes, down that bottom.
I believe that the field to the immediate north of that
is also owned by the applicants.
Okay, thank you.
That's okay, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:56:37
Council Member, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Do we have Doug Harrison here now?
Mr. Harrison, you have three minutes to make your presentation.
You can see the clock behind me.
And if you don't mind remaining seated at the end for points of clarification.
Good afternoon, my name is Doug Harrison. I live in one of the three grade two listed
Public Speakers - 0:57:14
buildings adjacent to this proposed development. We strongly object to the following reasons.
The proposal is for a residential development in open countryside, outside the settlement
boundary of Pittsdown Village. That's policy number one in the Pittsdown neighbourhood
plan is fundamental cornerstone. The PMP took up 18 months of lives of many many
people living in our village. It was approved at referendum by 97 % of those
who voted. All those dedicated volunteers and those who backed them when voting
placed their utmost face in the community -led planning system that ABDC
and Butts Council said they supported to the hilt. So we then approved this
application for the sake of one house. One house would be to let every one of
those people down irreparably. What's the point of a neighbourhood plan if the LPA
are just going to ignore it? This proposal is just a single dwelling but
if it was to gain approval it would surely set a precedent for further
development along Cheddington Road into open countryside. As you will be aware
already in the pipeline is a proposal for three dwellings in their field in
immediately to the west of the application site,
which again is outside the settlement boundary.
More could easily follow.
ABCDC Bucks Council and the planning inspector
has refused similar proposals on this site
seven times since 1980.
The reasons have consistently included
unacceptable incursion into open countryside,
being visually intrusive and harmful to the rural character
and appearance of this area.
No material plans and circumstances have changed
since that refusal,
save for the lack of a five -year land supply,
which this application would have no impact on.
Approving this application would be wholly inconsistent
with the council's own position
and the local plan more generally.
Quickly, privacy and amenity would suffer,
particularly for the two adjacent bungalows
and the three listed buildings to the west.
This would have a dramatic impact on the integrity of the old Orchard Farm and its two barns.
And on the local community, this site forms a vital buffer between the environment of
Pittstone and the open countryside it heralds.
The risk of background development.
The applicant owns adjoining fields and it's well known he wants the development too.
Approving this application would be a go ahead for that.
approving one house that goes squarely against the neighbourhood plan would open the floodgates and let down the entire Pittstone community.
Lastly, just consider the impact on wildlife. Thank you for your time.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:00:08
Great, sir. Thank you very much for your time. Any points of clarification?
Can I call now?
Thank you, sir. Thank you for your presentation.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:00:17
You say that it's an open countryside, but it's not, is it?
The building is not an open countryside.
Sorry?
The building is not an open countryside because it's houses opposite and houses to the sides.
Well, there's no house to the side on the left.
That's an open field.
Public Speakers - 1:00:36
The old jib farm and the barns are set right back behind.
This house is going to be set back, isn't it?
No, it's not. It's right in your face.
As you come down the road, that's all you would see.
I mean, forgive me, but the pictures that were shown
show a very one -sided view of that road as you go down.
Oh, I didn't think they did, but okay.
There's no buildings to the, where that red square is,
there's no buildings to the left.
At the moment, that's just fields.
But there are to -
The barns and the orchard farm are set way back.
the barns of the houses to the right and houses opposite it.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:01:18
Where's the houses to the right? They're little bungalows right at the front.
So it's a house isn't it?
Well the bungalows are right at the front.
Alright, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:01:28
Just a quick one and then we're going to take the corner later.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:01:33
You reference the houses to the west.
I presume that's the one to the side?
That's the field that's next to my barn.
You say they're listed.
you say that they are listed. No but the two barns and the farmhouse are listed.
Public Speakers - 1:01:50
Okay so when when you say that they're listed are they old style?
Well the farmhouse is single breed but two barns are oak clad.
Okay thank you very much for that explanation thank you. Thank you
Councillor Pohl. Thank you Chairman I just wanted to know the age of the two
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:02:11
listed properties there?
I'm afraid I can't answer that off the top of my head,
but I mean ancient.
Public Speakers - 1:02:21
So more than 100 years, 200 years?
The barn itself, what's listed for the barn
is the original oak frame.
It's actually covered under
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:02:41
paragraph 52 from the inspector okay thank you sir thank you your time thank
you very much
all right can I call Joanna
Joanna
Okay, therefore I'll call the applicant Paul Gumstead please.
You, sir, have also got three minutes for your presentation.
And if you don't mind remaining seated afterwards for points of clarification.
Public Speakers - 1:03:49
Good afternoon councillors and others. I'm the applicant. I have lived in Ivanhoe and
Pittstone more or less all my life since being evacuated from London during the war and have
served on the Pittstone parish council in the past. The proposed site is definitely within the
and it's basically infill with dwellings to the front and both sides.
Two houses to the front, both of them are occupied or were occupied by councillors,
Pittsburgh parish councillors.
One is unfortunately deceased but the other one spoke for a long time at this meeting.
and both sides are developed.
There's I think four houses on the northern side and there's two houses, two bungalows on the southern side.
It would not be in any way detrimental to the village structure and does not harm listed buildings nearby.
Recently there have been many calls for sites to meet additional dwellings for these challenging times.
The proposed site is not Greenbelt and whilst it is hardly significant in the overall scheme of development,
it does minimise the use of Greenbelt and other unsuitable land.
For instance, there is a plan to develop Greenbelt at Marshcroft about two miles to the south in the Decorum Hearts area.
To conclude, the proposal is in fill within the village with all services available.
It does not harm the village or listed buildings therein.
It is sustainable and sustainable building promotes economic growth.
Any questions?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:06:16
Councillor Waughan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:06:24
I asked the previous speaker a question and he gave me an answer and I'm going
to ask you the same question. Did you object to previous applications on that
site? Yeah the previous speaker said the applicant had refused, had objected to
previous planning. Now is that somebody else or this gentleman has introduced
himself as the applicant?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:07:14
Thank you, Chair. I'd first like to say compliments to you as the applicant for
your age and that and you farm that land you know obviously quite
to come here today and speak your mind.
It's very good to do that.
I just want to say that, okay, thank you.
But my questions are, is I'm gonna jump,
Mr. Councillor Smith on this one.
So you've been dying to find out.
Why did you not put this piece of land in call for sites?
I think it was put in, not by me,
Public Speakers - 1:07:44
but it was refused by Helia, Hela?
Right. Because it supposedly was in the floodplain. Don't ask me why.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:08:02
Okay, so it was put in call for sites but it got rejected.
Well that was, yeah, a long time ago. Thank you very much. One more question.
You said about the it's minimalistic to saving Greenbelt. Our objective is to
Save Greenbelt in Buckinghamshire and your view is that it's quite minimalistic to lose a little bit of greenbelt.
It's white land. It's not greenbelt.
Really? It's not greenbelt. It's agricultural land then?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:08:35
Public Speakers - 1:08:40
It used to be an orchard and pretty well it was an orchard for Aylesbury prunes and the prunes were sent up to London years ago I can just remember it.
It was stopped around about the 1940s, the late 40s.
Thank you very much.
Pretty well all the orchards around in Pittstone are all developed.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Hysane.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:09:15
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:09:21
Couple of points. One is, I'm assuming you don't just own the Red Square, you own the top part of the Red Square as well.
The Hopfield.
Sorry.
On that map there, can you see the red square? That's where the present application is centred on.
And I'm assuming the land to the north of that red square is owned by you as well.
I own that bit up to that where you can see, if you like, where it has just gone round.
So you've got the whole field.
I own that as well.
And I own a slightly one to the right.
To the right.
All of that as well.
Okay.
Well, here.
Public Speakers - 1:10:15
I used to own a lot more land and which I used to run cattle on which I don't own.
Okay.
Sorry, Mr Chairman.
My further question is, be careful.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:10:25
We were told it's agricultural land and you said it's white land.
What is it used for presently?
Why did what? What is it used for presently? You said it's white man and
Don't really you use it for anything. All right, so it's just a field. It's just a film
I use it for walking the dogs on things like that. Okay
cancer hopefully last one
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:10:49
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:10:52
Just to us basically where you live sir
Where do you live? Which is your house? In Chebys Lane.
Are you in the big house that's just past the bungalows?
Okay stop stop stop. That's totally relevant.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:11:18
Right. Thank you Gantor. Sir thank you for your time.
You have to put your hands up further, I can't stand the thought.
Can't just touch me, I go.
Thank you, sir, for coming and thank you for representing yourself.
Thank you for coming here in the war and to North Bookingshire.
You say that the land's open space, but not used for anything particularly.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:11:53
and you've listened to the history on the site. What do you believe the
development offers to the village? Noting the comments that it's done there if it's
if it was to be agreed what would it bring to the village that the village
hasn't got now? If you can express that because you talked about the development
No you're going to do it.
Public Speakers - 1:12:22
Well I'm aware if you like that there's many many additional houses have got to be built regardless if you like.
and I realised that the village plan, the line has been there for quite a long time
but it is very restrictive and it could well include the area which is if you like opposite that particular site
that could be rounded off in that way.
Okay.
Final question, Councillor Cohen.
Sir, thank you very much for coming today.
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:13:14
Obviously it's nice to have people like you
with, you know, representing yourself
and I'm sure it will be all considered, whatever you said.
Sir, you currently live somewhere else.
Can I ask what's the purpose of this property?
If it was to be a farmhouse for example, I think you are the farmer for many years
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:42
Okay, so I'll have to rephrase it now
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:13:52
Were you the applicant for this previous seven applications that took place there before?
Sorry? What did it say you think?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:14:04
Public Speakers - 1:14:08
Not for all the previous ones you said something about there was a one for multiple housing.
I didn't own the land then. I bought the frontage recently, well I can't remember exactly.
that certainly I didn't own the land at that time, not when some of them were.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:14:40
Okay that's fine, thank you. Right sir, thank you for your time.
Right Councillors, we're going to go into a technical session. I think, in the
the outset we just need to clarify the position on the neighbourhood plan.
On the neighbourhood plan both the boundary and also its status. Okay so I think that
will be our first question. Obviously Mr. Moron has got to cancel Moron as well.
Another technical question?
I have but I think you've addressed it, sorry, I think you've addressed it Mr Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:15:22
You know I wanted clarity on the neighbourhood plan because it's ten year old at the minute.
What weight did the officers give to it because if you look at the applications that were
refused and particularly the last two, 2016 which the plan was made, would that have,
Would the plan have obtained more weight in 2016 and also in 2021?
Because it was on the five -year -old.
Thank you.
Councillor Paul, did you have your hand up?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:15:53
I did, Chairman, for a technical...
Is it relevant...
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:15:57
Is it the same as what we're talking about at the moment or is it another point?
I don't know.
I was reading my words. I'm confused as to...
about the neighbourhood plan and its boundary or is it another question?
I think it's more fundamental than that but
I will make reference to that but my scrawled notes don't fit neatly into your question.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:16:24
Let's deal with the neighbourhood plan first.
Thank you Chairman. So the neighbourhood plan was made, I think it was set in 2016, so it
predates the date of the Vale of Aylesbury local plan. So although there may have been
the intention for it to be in conformity with that plan during the process, the fact of
the matter is it can't have been in conformity, total conformity with the plan because that
plan hadn't been in existence at that time.
So it is out of date.
And we also have to consider that this is
a tilted balance case.
So if we look at section, sorry, paragraph 11D
of the MPPF, it says where there are no relevant
development plan policies or, and that's the point here,
the policies which are most important for determining
the application are out of date.
An out of date is quite clearly established in footnote 8,
and that says this includes for applications involving
the provision of housing, and it doesn't matter
whether it's just one house or more than one house,
situations where the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five -year supply of deliverable housing sites
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 1:17:39
with the appropriate buffer, or the housing delivery test
indicates the delivery of housing was substantially below
less than 75 % of the housing requirement over the previous
three years, those policies are out of date. So the neighbourhood plan policy,
because it concerns the delivery of housing, sorry, because it's in
concerned with an application which involves the provision of housing, it is
out of date. And therefore, as a result of that, you have to apply the tilted
balance and there's the presumption in favour of sustainable development and
And therefore, that means granting planning permission unless paragraph 11D1, which is
protecting areas or assets of particular importance, which it isn't suggested applies in this case,
or D2 applies.
And that is that any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.
And so that's what you would have to be satisfied.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:18:52
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:18:55
I think just to say that within the officer report itself, just to build upon what Catherine has said,
officers have undertaken that balancing exercise within paragraphs 64 to 69 of the officer report.
And in this instance, the harms identified are not considered significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
Hence the officer recommendation being one of the proven
Casual saying does that answer your query previously? Yep, okay, how's the poll?
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:19:27
Thank You chairman, I don't know if this this is to the legal officer or to the planning officers, but I
Was a member of I was vice chairman of the neighbouring village
Labour Plan Development Committee at the same time as possibly you were involved
as well and we were all around. We were encouraged to do these things and they
had to be in conformity with the VALP. It was without our control that VALP was
not adopted until 2021 when it was became Buckinghamshire Council but
everything that we did had to be in conformity. What we are in danger of
saying here today is that every neighbourhood plan in the county is out
of date null and void cannot be updated until the new Buckinghamshire plan is
adopted and then there'll be a process of reshaping neighbourhood plans to
comply with with that that's the danger we're at we're in.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 1:20:35
Well, if I can just comment, paragraph 14 of the NPPF envisages a situation in which
there is a neighbourhood plan which was made within the previous five years and in those
circumstances it has a particular weight.
So I don't think that is the case for all neighbourhood plans, but in this case we have
a neighbourhood plan which is 10 years old.
And as I've said, we're in the paragraph 11D,
tilted balance scenario.
And that's the policy that makes any housing provisions
out of date by definition,
because of the fact that we don't have
a five -year housing land supply.
So it's not actually the age of the plan itself.
It's that lack of the five -year housing land supply
that makes the difference.
And some of the neighbourhood plans are much younger.
I know for a fact the Buckingham plan is now
it's just been re -done.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:21:31
So that's still within that five years.
So it carries more weight for any applications
that we have to deal with.
And yet that was recently ignored as well.
Recently what, sorry?
That was recently ignored in an application
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:21:46
late last year or early this year.
It was still in the process of coming forward
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:21:53
of oil came up. It hadn't been made. Just to say it wasn't ignored I mean the
inspector had regard to that recently made neighbourhood plan in drawing their
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:22:02
conclusions on the Broughton Road Buckingham appeal and they had to reduce
the weight given to the conflict with the neighbourhood plan by virtue of the
fact that council cannot demonstrate a five -year housing land supply so it's
the same point that's already been raised it's the lack of five -year
housing land supply that is giving rise to the fact that we have to give reduced
weight to the policies within the neighbourhood plans where they define a
specific settlement boundary for housing.
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:22:34
Okay if I may just very quickly Chairman, as I recall that plan was that update
was complete and was just waiting to go to referendum so it was waiting for
Buckinghamshire council to arrange a referendum date. This committee refused
it but the inspector overruled that.
But it's not relevant to this case.
Councillor Gaughan.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:22:56
Thank you Chairman. Could you just bring up the side elevation of the property place compared to the original proposal and the second?
That's it. Could you just clarify because we're looking at what is being proposed to go there.
So it was turned down with the previous site elevations.
So those site elevations, to me, the newer one looks bigger.
I think it's just at the scaling of the plans.
So it's unfortunate that it looks that way,
but I can assure you, I have measured them.
They are the same height,
but it's mainly the width of the dwelling.
Faye Hudson - 1:23:30
So if I go back on, it is more evident in that image there,
but the previous dwelling was 21 metres wide.
This one is now 14 metres wide.
Okay, but the height is almost the same.
Okay, it is important that we know that it's you know, it's
I'm not 7 foot 6.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:23:47
I'm 5 foot 2.
So it's quite important.
We know the sizes and then you refer excuse me.
That the plot is now smaller compared to what was originally
there. That's really an irrelevant point, isn't it?
Because at a later stage they could expand that and move out
You've just got to determine the application.
Faye Hudson - 1:24:13
Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying it's a bit irrelevant that it's just been made smaller.
I've just asked for clarification. And then we've already established it's agricultural land and it is used and stuff.
But then the last bit I come to, oh, and then we had the call for sites that that's been referred to and it failed in that area.
But now we have an application come free on something that's failed. So
The current healer that is in process. It's not in that call for sites
I imagine it probably came in a previous call for sites
So the one that's currently going forward at the moment
It was not put forward as part of that healer, but he had failed on the previous one
It may well have done. I'm sorry. I don't know the details last question
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:25:04
So the faculty, would you like to elaborate?
Yes, I can do.
Faye Hudson - 1:25:11
So in line with the council's constitution,
when an application is called in by either ward members
or the parish council, we respond to them,
advising them of our recommendation
ahead of going to committee.
We set out our reasons as to why we may or may not
to be going contrary to their recommendation.
And we give them the opportunity
based on the advice we provide,
whether they wish to continue with the call -in
and bring it to committee or withdraw the call in.
Thank you for clarifying that to bring it up because it got mentioned.
So thank you.
Councillor Stosry.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:25:41
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:25:45
Thank you and just let's be clear with the legal officer.
This application has nothing to do with the validity of oven veil plans and the veil plans
and development plans in other areas because I think that was being conflated and having worked
on one and the weights in them and how they apply. My understanding of it, the newer the
plan is, the more planning weight it has. And the policies with that plan carry weight
equally if they're in conformity with the emerging Buckinghamshire plan. So what I understand
is the Valour plan is a historic plan and this neighbourhood plan is an historic neighbourhood
plan. That said, I just want clarity that we're not making a judgement about neighbourhood
plans because that was and I think that's important. What I was going to ask
for you chair is relevant to the report. It might be helpful in the determination
of this report and you you you I did erase these questions earlier with the
Basis of the report, I saw it, was the policies BE2 around the way you would determine a policy
within a small area, the designation.
I also concluded through reading the report that on page six, your policy D3, the valuatory
plan which has been referred to provides non -allocated developments, which is pretty much what this
is in your report and your weight you've put on it in your determination.
Also 11, it also in your report, perhaps 11, you're going about the small scale developments
not defined policy, which means they're not really defined in the sense that they're not
like a big development, they are small development and they're not defined where they are considered on their own.
Would that be correct?
And 17, which goes into further the overall conflict policy and policy D3, which you say policy one that the PNP,
when you were making your new say being weighed in the planning was in the balance, the balance
of your decision with the healer and the MPDF. And those are the grounds that I'm having
to look at the report in context with because whether I emotionally feel anything else differently,
I'm only bound by as a Councillor I can only really determine this report on the
information provided unless one can find a contrary to the policies of the
That's where I'm going, that's my understanding. I want to bring it back to the
report because we seem to have gone quite a long way away from the report
which was you know and those things correct in that your assumptions of way
you got where you did. You see very clearly there the amount of weight that
the officers have given him. Yeah I was trying to get back to where we were on
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:29:03
the report which he'd drifted. Right let me call in Kenzler Hossain.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:29:15
Couple of questions. One technically the officer Stubbs has given us the reasoning
behind the neighbourhood plan.
Does that same reasoning apply to Val as well?
One, being more than 10 years old.
Number two, because it is so far behind in the housing,
therefore Val is out of date and carries no weight as well.
Number one.
Number two, on page 21 at the top,
this is the residential unit in the development
should be constructed as a self -build.
All right.
And custom -held building at 2015.
First occupation by a person who had a primary input
into the design and layout of the unit,
and the country will be notified who to take up
a month before it's completed.
Number one, how long does that self -built person
have to live there?
Does he have to live there a week, a month, five years?
it's like I'm just saying with the right to buy,
if you move within five years,
the association or the council has a drawback
on the profit of the property.
And number two, how do you ensure that it is,
how much input they're adding to the build?
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 1:30:37
So starting with the point on the Vale of Aylesbury
local plan. Yes, we come back to paragraph 11D again. So because of the
lack of a five -year housing land supply, again that the policies that are
relevant here because this is an application relating to the
provision of housing are considered to be out of date. So that doesn't
necessarily mean that no weight is attached to them, but it means that this
framework requires that the decision taken that the application is approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
So that's just saying that if you were to refuse permission,
you would have to balance all the benefits
and all the disbenefits and consider
that the adverse impacts would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh those benefits.
So that's just that context of policy.
As regards self -build and custom build housing,
the applicant doesn't have to be the person that lives there
but it needs to have had input, if you like, significant input
in terms of the design of the property from someone who will live there.
And for sill exemption purposes, but sill doesn't apply in this area,
they have to live in the property for three years to benefit from a sill exemption.
But as I say, at the present time, sill doesn't apply in this area.
that's the community infrastructure levy.
There is also an exemption from the requirement
for biodiversity net gain, but that
doesn't have that same sort of time limit of exemption
as applies for SIL.
OK.
That's probably one question.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:32:39
We're still confused as to what it is at the moment.
We've been told it's white land, so it's not agricultural
in the sense of being farmed in any shape or form or grazed in any shape.
It used to be a plum orchard in the 1940s apparently.
It stopped being, and it's just a field.
I don't know what that means.
So what weight does that carry? What is it?
Well, it's agricultural land.
So even when it was a plum orchard,
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 1:33:07
that's an agricultural, horticultural use as well.
As I understand it, it has been farmed, it's been grazed,
but it's not green belt land so it doesn't have that designation.
We've got enough trouble with a grey belt, let alone white belt.
Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:33:26
Thank you.
Yeah, sorry, the reason why I asked for the address of the gentleman before,
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:33:35
the applicant, was to establish whether the access
was going to kill off going into the other field.
because I was slightly concerned, am I right in thinking,
or did we discuss this, that there is a right,
is there a public right of way
through that particular piece of land?
No, there are no rights of land.
The reason why I asked that is that in one of the slides,
it shows a gate at the top end of this site.
Councillor Doolittle, remember also,
the applicant told you about the fill
to the white that he owns.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:34:16
Yes, yes. There may be another entrance.
Yeah, no, I was only concerned, yeah, but I was only, if you look at
is one of the slides there, Harry, that, oh,
yeah, yes, at the top end there,
yes, that gateway suggests that there
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:34:35
is, I don't know, a right of way? No?
It could be just in the field to play.
Just struck me slightly odd if you know something.
Okay, Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:34:55
Thank you chair and I guess what is troubling me a little bit is the report is really clear, the balance, the planning balance, very clear for us.
And I'm just wondering if we can have a view from our legal people and
the planners about if we choose to reject this application,
is it likely to go to appeal and are we likely to be liable for costs?
Right, let's just go back a stage.
We need to actually make a decision on what we've heard.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:35:24
Once we've made a decision on what we heard, where it goes after that is,
down to us if we go against it, have we got sufficient
harm to demonstrate that that's where we're going.
So I don't think that the question is appropriate
at the moment.
Right, Councillor Gough.
You opened the door for me there, Chairman,
because like with my colleagues, Councillor Huxley
asked if they lose that access, the gentleman has
he stated that he owns that field the one behind and the one to the top right
so that's his access into the field where is his other access it is
absolutely unimportant because at the moment we're looking at the application
before it right the application would block his access maybe no you don't know
that's not a part of this application application to build this house on this
plot. What he's deciding to do with it he may have given it to somebody else or
done something about it. It's not for us to determine that. Right Councillor...
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:36:44
Thank You Chairman. Quite right that we bring it back to just this application
in isolation. So why therefore was mention made of the application next door and a presumptive
determination declared by the officers? It was simply to provide context for the area.
You are correct that every application must be determined on its merits. It was there
Faye Hudson - 1:37:11
for context nothing more. So why then is Councillor Gomes question not for
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:37:24
context? Which one? Or so many others chairman I just find the double
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:37:28
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:37:32
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:37:36
standards alarming. I'm just trying to drift back to the application bit and
And this is for understanding South build, which this is, if I'm correct, chair, this
is what we're doing.
So the South build policies for this one, they were, there was policies H5 South build
in the value value plan.
That's that those policies were well known and well used policies for allowing one off
South builds, which was that bailout plan, which is still quite right.
And also, I was interested to understand, because I need to understand when making the
decision, the emerging draught plan, the policies in the
emerging draught plan for South build is marked out under policy H04, which means that
that in both contexts when I'm considering this, there was a previous policy in the valour
plan, which has been superseded by the emerging plan, which offers to be what I call weight
to a decision. Because when you take it, you have to take the most, whatever your emotions
around something, you have to take the decision around the actual information where they are.
And I just want clarity where those two points, one supersedes the other, but it reinforces,
forces the policy already concluded in the previous development plan which is
current but for an away just to clarify the veil of Ellsbury local plan is the
Faye Hudson - 1:39:10
upstate local plan yeah the draught plan currently holds no weight so the
emergent policy doesn't carry way no I think it's important that we understand
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:39:19
that we've thrown about with the stuff thanks for the legal officer established
the legal weight of the Mert the current plan I think it's important that we have
that in context against where we are when drawn.
Yeah, okay.
That's fine.
Right, we're bringing technical to a close.
Now we're going to go open debate.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:39:39
Which, here we go, Councillor Moughlin.
Are we in debate, Chairman?
Yes, yeah.
Okay.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:39:48
I sit here troubled because I can't make a decision
one way or the other.
And the reason I can't do that,
and it's really concerning me, is the information that we found out here today,
which is alleged that this site failed at the call for sites. Why did it fail? Is there a white
elephant somewhere on that site that we don't know about? No, stop, stop, stop, stop. The call for
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:40:18
sites can happen and has happened in two phases.
That is not relevant to the application
we've got in front of us.
What we have before us is an application
for self -built property.
The officers have outlined what it is
and the changes from the previous application.
The fact that it didn't go through a call
of sites previously is not relevant.
I'm sorry, but that's where we are.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:40:50
I'm sorry chairman, but it has to be irrelevant. There's a reason why it failed at Call for Sites.
Let me get Catherine to reinforce it.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 1:41:03
The applicant said that it was a previous Call for Sites in which it was put forward, so that would have been at the time of the making of the Vale of Aylesbury local plan I assume.
And we were obviously in a very different context at that time.
So I don't think it was a call for sites in relation to the current emerging Buckinghamshire local plan that it's put forward to.
But there's no requirement for someone to put something forward for a call for sites.
And where it's only a site for one dwelling, it might be that people don't bother to put that forward.
Just for clarity on that point, I mean we don't ask for sites where they would accommodate less than five dwellings.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:41:36
So in terms of the current call for sites, we don't look for sites that are smaller than accommodating five dwellings.
So for example this site, the applicant might have just thought it's not of a scale that could accommodate five dwellings, therefore I won't put it in.
Now that is speculation. I don't know why the applicant didn't choose to put it in. That's wholly at their discretion.
but for context in terms of sites we identify as offices as part of the healer process,
we discount sites that cannot accommodate a minimum of five dwellings.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:42:12
Mr Chairman, can I just, there was a mention about the failure at call to sites and the
ward flooding was mentioned. That concerns me.
Can I just clarify that the application site is in flood zone one and it is at very low
risk of surface water flooding.
And that is set out in paragraph 55 of my report.
Right, Councillor Cohen.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:42:33
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:42:36
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I think it's had a very good deliberation listening
to this very important subject, listening to the applicant
and obviously the local town council.
I think, I mean, I'd like to thank the officers
for giving us such an informed, well presentable case.
But I am in dilemma as my colleague has said previously,
it is where do we go?
It's not clear enough unfortunately.
And I think where you have doubts,
you have to make a decision to be cautious.
I am worried about the cognitive development
that may take place,
meaning it could send a dangerous president.
And to lose our beautiful countryside
with developments here, there and everywhere
because there is no local plan,
I think is a dangerous precedent.
I think we need to be on the side of caution.
We are custodians of our planning.
and we have to make the decision, the right decision,
and whilst the applicant made a very great representation,
but unfortunately, on this occasion,
I have to look at the holistic picture at large,
and therefore, I would be making a move
to not accept this planning application, to reject it,
And as the parish council,
council mentioned, it's a worry that this could
pierce the local plan.
But I think in the best interest of the decision
that we are making,
we've had a fantastic deliberation today.
And I think we have to make the right judgement today,
not past, not future, but today.
Therefore, I will be not accepting
the officer's recommendation and making a formal position.
Q. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the debate to follow, but I feel that someone needs to fertilise
the debate in which way we are heading. I feel, and I think from what I've heard on
officers, members, applicants that I feel I am reasonably ready to make an opinion
and therefore I will this to be rejected. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:45:15
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:45:20
I'm going to try and stay where we are which is within the report the
recommendations and the current situation we find ourselves in planning
which is not where none of us want to be none of us designed to be in this
situation that we'd have a shortage of land supply, that we'd have a healer that said
what we're going to do, and the regulations, we didn't write them.
And they are what they are.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:45:46
So it's not with any great gusto that you have to do this, but you have to act responsibly
sometimes.
And the responsible thing to do here, because we have to see this in context to the actual
where it is.
And whether that makes you popular or not popular, that's really not what we should
be here for.
And we have to propose that we regrettably have to agree this application because the
policy is D3 and the policies state pretty clearly what the regulations state, what our
planning policy state of the council, which would...and policy D3 of the Vow plan.
Also, if you go into, I mentioned earlier, I find it again, because I thought I'd do
some reading while I was sat here, rather than lose my emotions around the issue.
And of course, also in the plan, value value plan, which we've revised in, it was the current
plan we were considering is under.
In the value value plan, it very much caters for under H5, which says that these policies
can come forward to agree that. So I also fear that whatever emotions we have about
this against where we are, that is the situation that we find ourselves in. So I will be proposing
regrettably because the head of the healer and the shortage of land supply, we've received
that advice in the meeting and that is a public meeting and we know that we've received that
So I regretfully propose that we have to agree this application in accordance with the officer's
report because it's drafted soundly.
It represents the policies of the council and the policies that it...
And that isn't because of any enthusiasm, it's because it's a reality that we settle
in.
And to do anything else would be mischievous, false, and unprofessional.
So that's why I'm doing that chair
Your recommendation is to go for the officers recommendation so I seconded
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:47:58
Why wouldn't I ask is my proposal being seconded or not?
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:48:14
because you didn't give any reasons for refusal.
No.
Well, I am.
And you know, my reasons are that I feel that this will
impinge upon the local plan.
I think it's losing great amenity in that area.
And I'm sure there are others who will debate and you know,
I basically, I think what should have been asked is,
is there anybody seconding my motion?
And that presumption wasn't given.
Well, I don't believe you put forth a motion.
I said I'm not supporting the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:48:48
I'm formally opposing the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:48:51
So forgive me if my wording were not absolutely correct according to the protocol, but that's
what I meant and I thought everybody understood.
That's not what we heard.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:49:01
Did you?
No.
You have, okay.
Sorry.
Sorry, I didn't hear a direct response.
I didn't hear what Councillor Cornell said.
She said she was for the officer's recommendation
because actually I think it's in -fill
and I think it's a good looking house.
I don't think it's going to do any harm to the village.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:49:24
And there was, I've got another idea,
but I'm not allowed to say a bit of nimbyism was going on,
but I have no problem with it.
It's a good looking house, it's set back off the road.
Fine.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:49:36
We're still in open debate,
but I have a recommendation and a seconded
before us at the moment, but you can still speak.
Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost.
I really wanted to reflect on what Councillor Suchby has said.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:49:55
I think the weight of neighbourhood plans is an absolute travesty.
The state of our planning laws are an absolute travesty.
We have a situation here, a very clear situation,
where a community has taken a great deal of development,
appropriately and that this is now sits outside the neighbourhood plan and that
is a travesty I don't think there's any other way of looking at it but the
report makes it really clear where the weight of planning decision lies and we
don't really have any choice we we have to accept that despite the fact that
this goes against the grain and and and undermines the basis of neighbourhood
plans we have to accept that this application should go forward because to do anything else
would be simply to invite an appeal and that we would incur incredible costs. So I would
second the proposal and to accept the officer's recommendation on the basis that I don't really
think we have any choice. Thank you. Councillor Anderson.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:51:04
Thank you chair. Why was the seconder asked for Councillor Stachboum but not for Colm?
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 1:51:07
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:51:12
Because we didn't hear it as a proposal which was seconded. We didn't hear the reasons for it for going against the officer's recommendation.
I think Councillor Colm gave very good reasoning for his motion. I do think it should go to if anybody wants to second it.
Well, okay, well we need to see what happens on that thing.
Councillor Gough?
Interesting debate.
I'm glad we're staying into debate as well
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:51:35
because I wouldn't have sat quietly.
I'm just quite surprised that, you know,
we have a neighbourhood plan whether it's today, tomorrow,
yesterday, next year, whatever.
Within a day, it could be out of date
and the way this government is slapping down on top of us.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
By the time it gets changed daily,
I appreciate, you know, they're saying that the neighbourhood plan is possibly out of date.
It's the villagers neighbourhood plan, it's the parish neighbourhood plan.
That's what the people want and that's what they're designed to do.
So whether it's a year or two out of date, oops, but that's what they put...
Why are you doing that, Mr Smith?
Are you inviting a question, Councillor Gough?
I'll ask you to be quiet.
It's very clear. The argument is very clear.
It's me.
So as it moves forward...
Guys, stop.
That's fine, but it doesn't need to happen over that side.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
So the neighbourhood plan, sadly, as we said, it's out of date compared to what it is.
But it is their neighbourhood plan, simple as that.
But when it all comes down to it, when you look at the application that's down there in front of us,
let's look at it.
It is in the open countryside. It's the beginning of the open countryside. Whether it's Greenbelt,
no it's not. It's green space. It's open countryside. To me, that is out in the open
countryside and that is where the open countryside begins in Pittstone. So that's what we're trying
to protect there. That's how I see it. It has to start somewhere. The property is also quite a
property to go out there as well. That's what it's failed on previously and that's
what we're looking at now. Does the size of the property fail? We were trying to
fail one only a few weeks ago but luckily it got passed because of what it
was for. So it's the size of the property. That's what it comes down to. But I do feel, and
I know everyone's scared to go up against the neighbourhood plan being out of date
and stuff, but someone has to. That's our choice. But we've made that
choice as we go through.
Let's see where we go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Hussain.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:53:51
I don't think I need to repeat what Councillor said
about the, there is a confusion of what this site is.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:53:58
And I'm been in this game for about 35 years
and this is the first, not the first time,
but kind of real weight given to the term white land.
white land. It doesn't exist. That's on point. I've never heard it before.
The fact is, in my mind, is one, with what all the other councillors have said,
but the other complication in my mind is the self -built element.
That complicates it for me, because it's not just a simple application, give it,
But then you're saying there's got to be conditions as to who occupies it,
who builds it, who has input to that build.
That's what you said.
There has to be significant input.
And I don't know how that's measured, what's that measured by.
If the legal officer says there's a measure that we would use against that, I'll listen to that.
And the fact, as my colleagues have said, that the countryside has got
to start somewhere, and how long before.
I've asked a very pointed question of the
parish council
counsellor
That how does their plan?
Preserve the village in Aspik in in other words is it one of these NIMBY kind of plans that says we live here
We don't anything else to move here, and then they suddenly find out their kids are going to live and that always happens
But they said no there's been decent side developments, and there are more developments to come so
I have a minded along those lines and the list the
Put my mind at rest on the self -build elements that my reasoning is along those lines
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:55:49
Women debate in a moment. So perhaps I can help you that I mean the self -build is a standard process
There's very set criteria for it indeed the applicant doesn't have to do the self -build
He could they could sell it all they could do it
But the person that does the build has to live in it.
And they have to live in through a period of time.
But that is all laid out on what they do.
The self -build in the seal environment,
you pay no seal money.
But over here with us now, and obviously 106 you don't
because it's less than 10 buildings.
So seal is a very defined process.
My view of this application is that we have a situation
where the neighbourhood plan is old, it's 10 years old, the Vail plan is younger
and obviously we've heard we can't give any weight to the emerging plan but the
situation is what we've got to do is be able to demonstrate harm so because the
MPPF paragraph 11 is enacted, i .e. is a presumption in favour of all the
of the applications we get.
What we gotta do if we don't want to go in favour of it
is demonstrate what harm.
And we've heard from the previous inspector
that things like heritage isn't harmful.
So we've really gotta be very careful of where we are.
So that's my view on it.
And I think we need to go forward on that.
Yeah.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:57:25
We can do this a while and I do like Councillor Gorm and Councillor Paul sometimes get confused
because weight is given to one thing in one application and I've been doing this since
1999 I think it is.
So it's a good long time and sometimes the weight is given that the periphery and the
boundary of the village is sacrosanct and should not be broken.
Other times it is not given as sacrosanct and there's reasons for that.
And I'm not denying those reasons, what the officers have given.
They're doing their job and showing us legally this is the way you have to go and
this is our reason behind it.
I'm not denying that.
But I always get confused that in certain applications is the boundary is sacrosanct
And the people who live there are the ones who say,
we, this is our village, this is where we live,
this is what it looks like, and we don't want it to change.
And then we're told, no, yes, that's correct,
and so that's what my confusion sometimes is like.
But in this aspect, this is a green field,
whatever way you want to term it.
And it shows that this is the edge of the village.
If I could just, Chairman, on that point,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:58:42
in terms of any confusion,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:58:44
I think we have sort of laboured the point already but insofar as the age of the neighbourhood plan
The fact that the council cannot demonstrate a five -year housing land supply for the veil of Elsbury area
The weight that can be attributed to the settlement boundary has to be reduced in this instance as Catherine has already
Highlighted the tilted balance exercise set out and in paragraph 11 D of the NP PF is engaged
So I know you've used the word sacrosanct, Councillor Hussain, but in this instance the
weight is reduced with regards to those policies and both in the Bell Balesbury local plan
and the neighbourhood plan.
So hence why the officer report sets out very clearly about the level of conflict but the
fact that the amount of weight that can be given to that conflict is limited in this
instance.
So hopefully that gives you clarity insofar as where you hope to head with your recommendation.
Okay, I've got it. Right, Councillor Stoswami. Yeah, I absolutely respect the motion around this.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:59:52
I absolutely value colleagues and why you would want to come to a difficult
conclusion. The officers, when we did, because my colleague referred it, we
overturned a different decision in the previous meeting. That's because we came
up with planning reasons, which were substantial enough in the meeting.
And I've looked, I have to be honest with you, and I'm not great fuss for this application.
I've looked at it and I've just been sat here reading why I've been sat here,
trying to see if I could find a legal planning reason, which rather we were short
in the original proposal for.
You can't find a planning reason which is legal to overturn the decision.
You can't do it.
emotions can't do it, you know, we don't like that and whatever. We have to, it's a regrettable
reality of where we live and it gives me no satisfaction to say, Phil, I know where your
heart is, I know why you're doing it, your background and everything, I understand you mate and if I could have
found any legal reasons which were contrary to it, I would have brought them up but I haven't. I've
between anybody in this and I'm just because I know actually about this and I
want to say that it's the realities we live in but drew me to make the
recommendation because we have to move things forward in the meeting in a
direction which has got some validity and legal legality against it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:01:24
Councillor Colle. Thank you chair. Perhaps I need to be enlightened on how the
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:01:28
protocol of this meeting is. I'm a little bit disappointed that me making a form
recommendation was not pushed and even up to now you haven't asked for a
seconder, if indeed there is a seconder for me. I don't know what our role is
here. Are we just simply going to listen what our great officers do and agree
with them? If we have to do that then why are we here in the first place? You know
it makes it begs the question that either we are officer -led or we are here
for purpose. And if we don't agree with them, with respect, they do a fantastic job, but
this is where we are here to make, I mean, I'm not a planning expert. I'm a layman.
Perhaps in the past, when the officers knew that what my views are and who I'm opposing,
they would guide me how to present it and get what I want to say, what I believe in.
On this occasion, it was rollercoasted.
This is unacceptable, Chairman, with respect.
I'm made in good faith.
I don't even live there.
I drive past there.
I am, you know, it seems to be that we have been led
into making a decision.
And if that's the case, then why are we here?
That's not the case.
As the legal officer, Councillor Caunt,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:02:49
I hadn't understood that you were making a proposal
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 2:02:52
of the refusing permission. I know that that was your intention was that the
application should be refused but you hadn't mentioned any policies or any
reasons for refusal so I had not taken that as a recommendation which is why no
seconder was sought. Subsequent to that a recommendation was clearly made by
Councillor Stutchburn and was seconded by Councillor Cornell. That matter has to
taken first because there's a seconder for it. So that's why we haven't...
With respect, I mean, why wouldn't... I mean, maybe I should have been asked because in my
layman English, maybe English is not my first language and I'm trying my best,
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:03:33
that I was trying to make a point that I'm making a formal opposition to this.
If that word formal means it's not good enough, maybe I should learn how to modify it. So I am
disappointed that being in this chamber,
that the opportunity had not been given to me
or indeed to anybody who may have seconded it.
We now have a recommendation that's been seconded.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 2:04:00
And once that's considered, if that's disposed of,
if that isn't successful, then we will come back to you.
But obviously that has to be taken first
because we have a seconder for that.
Okay, Councillor Powell.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:04:15
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:04:18
Thank you, Chairman. Like Councillor Kahn, I'm a layman in these things but I have a
list of policies set out in the officer's report following the relevant planning history.
And to my mind, this application contravenes many of those policies as set out. We've heard
that there's no footpaths.
So footpaths and cycle routes, it contravenes T7.
We've had no information about electric vehicle parking,
so it contravenes T8.
The delivering transport in new developments,
it's clear that there is no physical way
to walk to facilities from this site.
So the use of a car will be necessary.
therefore I question S1 the sustainable development.
Is it really sustainable if you can only access facilities
with the use of a car?
I could go on, if that's not enough,
then let me sit here and write down some more.
But at that point, where I asked at the time
or where anybody asked, I would have put my hand up
and said that I would second Councillor Kahn's proposal.
but as the meeting has now moved on without any suggestion of you know is that a proposal is there a seconder then I'm afraid we've
Rather been guided in a certain way
Council Cornell
Do you want to speak?
Okay
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:05:56
Thanks, Chairman, and I pray
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:06:03
I appreciate what Councillor Stutchfield was directing towards me about me being very passionate about that.
This isn't about me actually, it's about that village and what they've got.
And it's our job to protect the open countryside. I understand what the officers are saying, but we have an obligation at some point.
And like I said earlier, that open countryside begins there.
So again, putting that to one side,
the neighbourhood plan is out a day.
As far as I'm concerned,
the property is quite big for the open countryside.
It is out of their village boundary,
but I keep emphasising it's out in the open countryside.
And for that reason, I'm siding with Councillor Cahn,
Councillor Powell and quite a few others in here.
So I would, if I could, not second it, but third it.
It's as simple as that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:06:57
Thank you. Councillor Gibbon. Yes, thank you Chairman. I'd like to come back to what
Councillor Brazier said right at the very beginning of the this application.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:07:13
His concern about but by these neighbourhood plans are very important
to preserve identities of these villages and which there are so many and it's
it's important they are preserved and also the natural landscape.
And if sort of really many people allowed to sort of build properties here, there and everywhere,
it's going, once it's happened once, it's going to happen everywhere.
And I think a lot of these villages, their natural characteristics will be eroded.
And so I agree with Councillor Abreuze that this could be sort of the catalyst
for a whole list happening in a lot of areas.
And I don't really see why so much weight is put on one property when very shortly we're
going to have to have a properly organised areas to have 95 ,500 houses where it won't
be thought out properly rather than just here, there and everywhere, which might not be applicable.
And certainly, instead of looking at the notes here, this application doesn't follow Policy
any fall and certainly natural England have said it would have a harmful effect
on terrestrial sites, a special site of interest, especially as a
conservation and special protection areas that they underpin and then
heritage says that it would result in less than substantial harm and these
detrimental impacts need to be weighed against public benefits so certainly
they did have concerns. So I just am worried about the cumulative effect if this one goes through.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:08:52
Thank you, thank you Mr Chairman. I think we're in a very unfortunate situation here,
where the parish are adamant that the plan was in date and they quoted 2013 -2033.
And the officers say it's not and the legal experts rightly say it's not in date.
And I think that's down to a lack of training.
And as you're aware, Mr Chairman, I've gone on loads and loads and loads of times about training.
And this is one situation where if the training had been in place, I think we'd be in a different situation.
The final point I'm going to make, and it's a really important point,
we've heard on numerous occasions this afternoon that 97 % of that village, 97 % voted for that neighbourhood plan.
That has to carry some weight. Thank you.
Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer - 2:10:00
If I may just jump in, sorry Chairman. There's been some policies that have been mentioned and I think it's just worth clarifying around those points.
So there was a mention of policies T7 and T8
earlier regarding cycle paths and foot paths
and the provision of electric vehicle charging points.
So in terms of, I'll take policy T8 first,
that can be resolved by condition.
So condition 14 in the officer report sets out that
the details of, just bear with me,
yeah, so prior to the first occupation of the dwelling,
one electric vehicle charging point shall have been installed.
So therefore, there wouldn't therefore be a conflict with policy T8.
In terms of T7, we've mentioned that there is no public footpath in the area.
So there isn't a conflict in that sense.
And policy T8 mainly focuses around the provision of cycleways and
footways not the impact on existing right of way.
Thank you.
about the sustainability of the site which was mentioned as well in terms of so that covers off
policy t1 and s1 that was mentioned so the highways officer has considered the site would be
suitable for development in terms of sustainability it's situated at the edge of a larger village
there are existing footways they are content those footways could be used to access the
services within the village and that they conclude at the bottom that they say the site has
reasonable access to amenities and opportunities for sustainable modes of transport.
In terms of the references made to policy NE4 and NE1, if I take NE1 first, so that's
in terms of the objection that's been raised by Natural England, that is specifically in
terms of the impact of the development on the Chiltern Beechwood sack, and that can
be resolved through a legal agreement, and that, so therefore the conflict with that
policy would fall away once that legal agreement has been signed and the
mitigation is therefore been provided.
And then in terms of policy, any for landscape policy.
So I have identified in my report,
so paragraph 31 identifies there would be negative limited negative harm
identified to the landscape conflict and with the overall aims of policy.
Any for that is then wrapped up in the weighing and balancing section of the
report with that limited harm.
So I acknowledge that there is a conflict with policy any for and in 65 that should cover off that conflict just to clarify
Okay, thank you for clarifying. I'll take two more questions
cancer free
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:12:39
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:12:44
With through you chair I asked that I think there's a split decision here in
Motions and whatever and it I think the sensible way
to go with it and if members feel it's reasonable,
is to move to the vote on the evening in.
If that vote falls, then we can move
to an alternative proposal if that is the way of the meeting
because we're in danger of losing sight
and if that falls, that allows members to come up
with a legal alternative to the proposal
and that way we can proceed.
Otherwise, we're in danger of losing the thread
or fairly the fresh for or against.
I think I propose that we extinguish that vote.
And if that votes, it's not carried.
We move to the next thing,
which is there has to be a formal proposal the other way.
Cause we're dangerous going around in circles here.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Gormley, do you want to add?
Well, I, you know, I'm with them over there
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:13:41
and following on from Councillor Mahoney as well
about training.
It's quite clear today, Chairman,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:13:46
and I want to make a recommendation actually
to this committee and to you as a chairman that I believe that all parish councils and town councils
should be advised that their neighbourhood plan could be out of date because it's unbalanced the
weight for us to make a conscious decision and I really feel that that should happen because
we shouldn't be in this position they shouldn't and nor should you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:14:13
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 2:14:18
Yes, I think what has to be understood is the importance of paragraph 11D of the NPPF
and whether or not you like it, you are required to consider planning applications in accordance
with planning policy, and this requires that this is granted unless the adverse impacts
of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
So when you, in whichever motion you're voting on, you need to have in mind what way
to might get into the benefits of this and what are the disbenefits,
and do they significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits?
And that is the balance that you have to have in mind.
So you can't just have a policy, if you like, objection of saying,
this contravenes the neighbourhood plan policy.
You have to then go one step further and say, and this is a problem.
And what I would say is that this is one house,
and this should not be taken as any kind of precedent,
even if you were to determine it,
not in accordance with the neighbourhood plan policy,
because each site is determined on its own merits.
So there is no concept of piercing the neighbourhood plan.
I appreciate what you said, excuse me, chair.
I appreciate you are the legal team,
but I'm all about ability because they don't know,
we don't know we're just in a position and we shouldn't be in that position.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:15:58
Okay we've got those will be forced to go with the officers recommendation which
has been seconded. All of those in favour please show.
Five.
All those against?
Seven.
Okay, that motion fails.
Who would like to consider anything else?
Chairman, Councillor Kahn put a motion through to the...
It's for Councillor Kahn to say what he wants.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:16:47
Chairman, I want to basically, I mean, as I said before,
I'm not a layman.
This is a very technical issue in front of us.
Whilst every one of us is not an expert,
we rely on our experts to help us and guide us. I think by piercing the local
plan is a big factor for me and it's a factor that what I believe.
What harm is that you were trying to demonstrate? Thank you Councillor Carnes.
What the officer needs to hear is what the harm is so they can put that into planning terms.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:17:22
Councillor Carnes invited me to speak if I may Chairman and I would like to set out.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:17:31
What I hope I understand is what he's trying to get across. I think that the
the officer has put too much weight on the the fact that it's one house helping
towards our 95 ,000 figure which in effect grants licence to anybody to put
an application into open countryside when the constraints on this site are
that as I quoted and I would dispute what highways have said this is not a
sustainable location with regard to,
what's the word, self -powered transport,
plus trans, it will require a car to get to facilities.
So it does conflict with T1.
The cohesive development S3,
I think it has been weighted there incorrectly, again because it expands out into, you know,
there's a real great danger.
If you can look at this on Google Maps, you're only 150, 200 yards from the hamlet of Cooks Wharf.
So there's a danger of coalescence there.
and the I think councillor Gibbon was correct in her any for suggestion so you
know this is a finely balanced argument and I would propose that on those for
those reasons that the balance, fine as it is, skews it in the in favour of
refusal. It wasn't close to the facilities of the village. What did you say?
The facilities of the village are, so they have a very good corner shop, it's
but that is a mile away and
From this property for the first 50 yards. There is no footway
So it's just a footway you're concerned about
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:20:20
Well is that not sustainable transport
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:20:25
And if you look at the location you're on yes, it's a 30 mile an hour road, but there is a corner there I
I think the highways technicians could look again and question their guidance
on no objections that's kind of a standard response from them.
Councillor Polliff I may just in so far as the point about sustainability there is a
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:20:57
excuse me, Ms Pearson may I please I've put formally put the proposal I don't need you to argue
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:21:09
against what I just said. The process is I formally put a proposal if our legal
officer is satisfied that that conforms to the process then we are looking for a
seconder to my formal proposal. I understand but if I may and so far as
just clarifying with you when you've said about the lack of a footpath for 50
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:21:29
yards there is a footpath that runs the entirety on the southern side of
in the Doonham Road, so immediately opposite that point of access.
And it runs all the way from the site to the centre of the village.
So I just wanted to obtain clarity from you in so far as you're concerned about the lack of footpath,
because as far as I'm aware, that's not the case.
So the crossing on a corner is acceptable to highways,
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:21:53
which is why I suggest that there are no objections is, you know,
a different way to their report. Okay understood.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:22:07
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:22:11
Okay so that's the proposal with those clarifications. Is that ceted? Yeah can I just ask a point here which I think is very important.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:22:23
I think we should give substantial weight to the fact
that the history on this site is seven refusals.
Seven refusals must carry some type of weight.
No.
We have to judge this application on its own merits.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 2:22:46
The planning history can be taken into account
so far as it's relevant, but this is a different application
and the differences between this and the previous application
have been explained to you.
Councillor Kahn, do you want to add to that?
Chairman, this is really getting...
I don't know.
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:23:03
I mean, I have to say this again and again.
We are not legal experts at planning.
We can only and only follow our hearts.
If our hearts is telling us it's not the right thing to do,
then we seek your advice to put it in words
that it becomes acceptable.
It looks as if the whole committee is not accepting it.
General, why can't we just go and vote on it and help us with wording if it needs to be?
What we were trying to do is clarify it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:23:37
We're not going against, we're trying to clarify the point, because they've got to demonstrate the harm.
Because until we demonstrate the harm, we can't take it forward.
Councillor Khan, if I may, in terms of, I have taken notes from the points of discussion made,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:23:52
and if I could provide a summary of what I believe the reasons for refusal will cover
and then you can correct me if there's points I have missed.
So by virtue of the notes I've made, I've written the proposed development by reason
of its location beyond the built -up area of the village, including the development boundary
within the neighbourhood plan, is contrary to the spatial strategy of the adopted Fair
to Vail to Be Local plan and the neighbourhood plan and comprises an encroachment into and
loss of countryside that contributes to the rural character and identity of this
part of the village. The proposal would also result in development in an
unsustainable location. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies
S1, S2, S3, D3 and T1 of the Vale of Elsbury local plan and the policies within the
neighbourhood plan. That's all I wanted. I mean couldn't we have done this
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:24:48
beforehand because the feeling is it's quite apparent what everybody's trying
to say but we don't have the expertise to put it forward so thank you for doing so.
I'll keep your content with that. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:25:02
Is it seconded? Hang on, we're all too many hands down. That's the proposal. Those are the reasons for it. Is it seconded?
Apologies Chairman just in the point that we are going for a refusal it
wouldn't be reasonable therefore for planning officers to require the
applicant to enter into a legal agreement at this point in time in order
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:25:23
to mitigate the impact on the Chiltern Beechwood Special Area of Conservation.
So if I may Chairman suggested that form a second reason for refusal as it
simply would not as I say be reasonable to require the applicant to incur that
expense ahead of them potentially going to appeal. So given those points is it
Seconded.
I second.
Councillor Gibbon.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:25:46
All those in favour?
Seven.
Those against?
Five.
Thank you. That motion is accepted.
Councillors could we have a break now?
The ward's right out of my mouth Mr Chairman.

5 24/03787/AOP - Land South Of Aylesbury Road, Bierton, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:26:14
Okay, shall we resume our committee meeting?
We're looking at the second application, which is 24 stroke 03787AOP.
Can I just remind colleagues this is an outline planning application,
it's not a full planning application.
and therefore the areas looking at is whether the applicant's application is
appropriate and it has access. In due time can I confirm that the following
speakers are available? Councillor Ward? Thank you. Sheila Cotton are you a
Are you both speaking?
Possibly not.
You can time it, please.
OK.
So while you're speaking, you have three minutes.
OK.
And the applicant is John, is Ben Johnson.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Once we begin, then move to this application.
And our Presenting Officer is Laura Waterton.
Thank you, Laura.
Yeah.
Thank you, Jeff.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
Lsura Waterton - Principal Planning Consultant - 2:27:32
The application I'm presenting today relates to land south of the A418, Aylesbury Road at Bearton.
It seeks outlying planning permission for up to 47 dwellings, including access onto the site and associated highway works.
As was mentioned, all other matters including appearance, landscaping, scale and layout are reserved for future matter applications.
applications.
This particular application has been referred to the planning committee at the request of
ward councillors, namely councillors Julie Ward and Kathy Gibbon, who have raised concerns
regarding the proposal.
Their concerns are set out in full in the report.
Before turning to the details of the application, I just wanted to share the slide which shows
the subject application site edged in red alongside another application site edged in
green which will be presented by my colleague as a separate item later this afternoon.
As you can see, the sites sit next to each other on the edge of the village.
However, aside from sharing a boundary, they will not be linked in any way and have separate
access points.
Another difference to bear in mind is that my application I'm presenting is an outline
application while my colleagues is a full application for 24 dwellings where all matters
are for consideration at this stage.
In terms of the wider area, the application site is indicated on this aerial photograph
by the star image.
It lies in Bearton Village to the northeast of Aylesbury and generally to the north of
which is a recent urban extension of Aylesbury of more than 2 ,000 wellings plus other services
and facilities which is nearing completion. The aerial image on the right shows that the
site itself is a triangular parcel of land, 2 .59 hectares in size. And as I've mentioned
it's located in the village of Bearton which is identified as a medium village in the Vale
of Alesbury local plan settlement hierarchy.
This means that in principle some level
of housing growth is anticipated in sustainability terms,
subject to compliance with policy
and the detailed impacts of any development.
This next slide shows some
of the main physical features of the site.
Members will see from this image
that the site itself comprises open agricultural land,
which is bounded by a mixture of hedging, trees, and other vegetation,
as well as fencing in areas where residential properties back onto the site.
The image also shows how the site's bordered by existing residential development to the north and the west,
with open agricultural land primarily to the east and the south.
And on here you also see that the Aylesbury Road runs along a small section of the site to the north,
and that's where the access to the site is proposed.
In terms of site constraints, the Bearton Conservation Area is shown here in green,
with nearby grade two listed buildings indicated by blue triangles,
with the grade one St. James Church shown by the yellow triangle,
which you'll see on the left -hand side of the slide.
Public rights of way within and around the site are also shown with purple lines indicating,
including the route that bisects the site.
An existing pond which is to be retained is also shown within the northern part of the
site.
This indicative layout as shown here was provided by the applicant for illustrative purposes
is only and does not form part of the application
for approval.
Rather, it shows one potential form of development
and how the proposed dwellings infrastructure
in other works could be accommodated on the site.
As I've mentioned, the vehicular access to the site
is proposed to be from the Aylesbury Road,
broadly in the location of an existing field access.
So a small section of existing hedging will be removed
to facilitate the creation of this formal access,
which you'll see includes foot ways to both sides.
The access will take the form of priority junction
incorporating a raised table on Tailsbury road
and the appropriate visibility space.
The local highway authority has reviewed the proposals
and raises no objection subject to a number of conditions.
Now these photos show the site as viewed from Ellesbury Road.
The top image shows the part of the site that's seen
when travelling east through Bearton or away from Ellesbury.
The long road of hedging on the right -hand side next
to the blue car denotes the length of the site frontage.
And in the bottom image, you see the same site frontage
when travelling west towards Aylesbury.
That's on the left -hand side.
You also see in this photo that there's views provided
into the site over an existing boundary front along the side.
And here again is the site frontage onto Aylesbury Road.
You see the top image shows the existing field access point.
into the site and that is near the point where I mentioned before the proposed access will be located.
And now this lower image shows a view into the site from the field access,
which is looking south through the site.
Now these images have been taken from the public footpath within the site that runs east -west,
just about in the middle of the site.
Now the image on the left then shows existing residential development to the north, which
includes the rear of properties fronting Aylesbury Road and those on Cowley Close.
And then the image on the right shows a view back towards the field entrance with the pond
and associated trees visible in the distance.
And just these last two photographs, these last two images, are also taken from that
public footpath.
The image on the left is then a view looking south towards the bottom corner of the site,
the corner of the triangle.
And the image to the right, then that's a view looking east towards the field beyond
the application site.
And there you also see the route of the public footpath is visible leading towards the style on the eastern boundary.
Finally, this slide shows the Bearton Village development boundary as taken from the Bearton neighbourhood plan.
And I've indicated the location of the application site in red there, which is evident, you can
see lies outside the settlement boundary.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you.
Chairman, if I may, just before you continue, there's been one update report posted following
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 2:35:32
the publication of the committee report, and it just raises two points for members to be
aware of. Firstly, it relates to advice following the council's list of reviewing
the officer report and it just provides clarity around the balancing exercise
undertaken in the officer report in relation to the impact on heritage
assets and then the second point is to raise awareness about a further
representation that's been received from a member of the public reiterating their
previous points in relation to concerns about flood risk and drainage. Thank you
Thank you very much.
Can we now go to Council Julie Ward please?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:36:11
Councillor Ward I know you're very familiar with the process.
There you go.
We have three minutes for your presentation.
and if you don't mind remaining seated afterwards for points of clarification.
Public Speakers - 2:37:18
The site in question is essentially the same patch of land as the next application.
You're not being asked to approve 47 dwellings now, although you are,
but by doing so you could effectively approve 71.
Scale massings sprawl into open countryside that will, and I quote from the report,
caused significant and irreversible landscape harm,
which should not simply be outweighed
by short -term housing land supply problem.
In 2016, this committee was given
exactly the same recommendation as the one before it today.
Nothing tangible has changed.
The brochures you are sent from developers just get glossier.
In 2016, this committee rejected officer's recommendation
and chose to refuse planning permission
on what is effectively this site as a whole.
Just nine days later,
the planning inspector delivered an appeal decision
which upheld the members courageous and correct decision
not to allow development in this area.
And some of those committee members who got it right then,
including your chairman and myself, are here with us today.
I am happy, should you choose to ask me,
to share with you all the reasons for refusal
that were upheld then and apply still
with the added protection of an in -date neighbourhood plan.
Bearden Village has seen unprecedented growth,
more than any other village.
It is small, around 800, 900 dwellings,
and has taken development so far of 2 ,500 homes,
splitting the parish.
What's left must be protected,
placing its setting, landscape and identity above all else.
It is facing an immense level of growth again
in the new emerging local plan and accepts that to deliver the Northern Link Road for
the wider benefit, it will have further growth imposed upon it.
Do not be scared by the threat of appeal costs.
We have budgeted to defend appeals.
We are turning down applications at our committees, as we've just seen, and we must stick to the
line we have previously taken and turn down development in this area for all of the reasons
that you just gave for the last application.
Our local plan is underway and appeals take time.
This site is not within the emerging local plan,
which will gather strength
over the coming weeks and months.
There is much in the report that I disagree with,
and I believe it's come to the wrong conclusion
from cumulative effect to highways, please ask me why.
We are being asked to provide 95 ,000 homes in Bucks
with the majority here in the north our wards.
I am happy to expand and clarify on anything I've said
should you wish to ask me questions.
But we sit and watch while in the south,
green belt goes untouched.
We in our wards face opportunistic speculative applications
on agricultural land and green fields.
Thank you.
Thank you.
any points of clarification?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:40:26
Almost at full house.
Councillor Powell.
Just a very brief one, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:41:00
We've spoken previously about cumulative effects on development in small settlements.
Now, I know that the Kingsbrook development has school facilities,
but all the villages around are having students sent towards Kingsbrook.
so I would like to understand what is the current school position place and I
see there's the C of E combined school on my map here for young families moving
in school places thank you. Sorry Councillor Ward mentioned it at all.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:41:40
I asked, I said that I challenge most of the report and I'm happy to answer
questions on anything. That's absolutely not the point. We can take the schools question up in technical.
Councillor Smith. Would you like me to address the point Councillor Palme made about cumulative? No thank you.
Public Speakers - 2:42:00
Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you Chairman.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:42:08
Really you've kind of prompted us to ask about the cumulative effects on
and I'm really quite interested to hear
what the local community's view is
for somebody that's used that road quite a lot.
And particularly the proposal to mitigate the difficulties
by putting in a very large, what's it called?
Raised junction.
Raised junction, which I understand is
opposed most other places because of the effect on
busses and et cetera, et cetera.
So I'd like to hear your views on traffic.
traffic management. Thank you Councillor Smith. I take it you've driven through
Public Speakers - 2:42:48
Bearton recently then so you're familiar with the famous Bearton traffic calming scheme which made
its way all the way to the House of Commons. You do mention the raised table. Not so long ago I
had the misfortune of being transported to hospital in an ambulance and I asked the drivers what they
thought of the scheme.
And they said that the raised table was a major problem
for them when they were transporting patients,
particularly spinal patients.
I'm shocked that there's no objection from highways to this
and I disagree with their comments.
The raised table itself is already there.
They're planning to make it larger.
It sits in between a chicane,
where there's been a major accident involving a taxi
in a lorry and a narrowing of the road.
I cannot imagine why there's any perception from highways
that putting more traffic at this junction
or onto the A418 in Bearden is in any way, shape, or form
safe or acceptable.
I understand that they do desktop traffic modelling
schemes, but they are deeply flawed.
The traffic calming has not passed an RSA3 at this point.
and we only need to look at the junction that was delivered at Askey's at the other end of the A418
where it was so flawed it was quickly closed down for the right hand turn
and closed for many years until it was redesigned.
So I'm afraid I don't agree with the Highways Office's assessment of this.
Okay.
Chancellor Gibbon.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:44:32
Thank you. You mentioned about the sprawling to the countryside that would cause irreversible harm.
I noticed that the Heritage Statement agrees with this and states that the development does not comply with Section 72 of the Planning Act.
Could you tell us a bit more about what you know about the site and how it will affect the local area?
Public Speakers - 2:44:54
Thank You councillor Gibbon well if members look to the the screen there I
think you can see with the existing built development of Cowley Close and
the other developments where you bolt on to that that is in my opinion an
unacceptable sprawl into open countryside if you add further that
there is an application coming up after this one to the site immediately to the
right, that sprawl is completely unacceptable.
And when we look at the cumulative effects of development,
and I don't just, I mean, I could talk about just these two,
we need to discuss what we can reasonably assume
is coming forward, and we can reasonably assume,
because it's up next on the agenda,
that that sprawl will continue across that area there.
There are there's a huge site in the
Emerging local plan up to 9 ,000 dwellings to the north of Beerton and there are there are three additional sites
Landergibb Lane Corner Farm Gibb Lane land north of the paddocks in Marshall Lee in Marshall's Lee
So I would say that
in terms of sprawling countryside
and cumulative
impact of that there is a reasonable foreseeable development that we already
know about and others that will likely be coming forward in the next local plan
and you know these are fields that are close by they're similar in locations
and you know we already have a major development of two and a half thousand
houses in Kingsbrook which is on the other side of this village we must
protect the identity of Bearden of what's left to the in the core of it at
all costs in my opinion. It does have a made local neighbourhood plan just last year. Like
all local neighbourhood plans, a lot of time, effort, 10 years of effort and money went
into it and I was very pleased to see that it was taken seriously by this committee.
Okay, thank you very much. Councillor Stosv me.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:47:00
I take your advice through chair for ask questions whether it's something that should be technical.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:47:04
Point was made about cost of appeals and cost of appeals and to ignore the cost of appeals.
Is that something we should take in technical?
It's nothing to do with the planning application but it was said to ignore the cost of appeals.
I take advice on whether I should ask a question about that or not.
No, no, no.
The cost of appeals is not relevant to the application.
Thank you.
Rather than it was mentioned,
I just wanted to seek an application.
Councillor Bauhaus.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Councillor Ward, I noticed that you listened intensely
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:47:46
to the last application, and a lot of talk
was about the neighbourhood plan.
and you say in your presentation that the neighbourhood plan is in date.
Could you just tell me when it was made, please?
If you know, if not, I'll ask the parish councillor who's up next.
It was less than a year ago, Councillor Mahon.
I would say perhaps July or August of last year.
It was last summer.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 2:48:12
And I can confirm in relation to the neighbourhood plan,
this application sits outside the settlement boundary.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:48:27
Thank you Chairman. Councillor Ward I was just wondering, you say there is much in the
report that you disagree with, can you just put it down to a couple of specifics as to
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 2:48:34
what you think the main points are that you disagree with? Thank you.
Well, you're asking me to bring it down to just two things.
Well, a few things if I may, but I won't go on forever.
Public Speakers - 2:48:59
I touched on the cumulative effects.
I've touched on the highways effects.
I believe the character and landscape of the village as a whole,
what you did not see from the title, the photographs which show the access.
You didn't really see it face on.
So it's acknowledged in the report that the gaps within the built development in the village
are absolutely crucial as part of the identity.
And you can see it on the overhead plan there.
But they're becoming few and far between.
And I think it's really important that to preserve the character of Beerton that those gaps and those
peaks into the open countryside and the rural nature and the character of the village are preserved.
I don't believe that
what I do know that the schools are at local capacity. I know because I'm the local member and I get
emails from new residents all the time that cannot get their children a place in the school.
The school has already been expanded to accommodate Kingsbrook. That is a capacity. I can't that can't get any bigger
The schools on Kings Brook are full
Children that are moving into Kings Brook are being taken by taxi to William Harding at the moment or they are for a secondary school
They are going by taxi to Mandeville, which is completely over the other side of town
there's no adequate health care and the ICB have have acknowledged that and
and you know throwing a few quid at a practise over the other side of town where there's no we have no we have no
Bus routes we have no bus links of an evening. I think we get maybe one bus an hour
It will rely heavily on
On people and their cars which again is not something that we should be encouraging
You did ask me to keep it success, okay?
I'll do my best.
Councillor Gough.
Yeah, thank you very much, Jen.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:51:06
Like you say, you brought up the traffic and the concern of the raised bed, which was quite something and a disturbance.
Could you just clarify in, could you just bring that picture up, please, the raised bed one?
I just want to see.
Lovely, thank you very much.
Can you just, I can see where it's coming out of the,
out of that field that we know quite well,
but just confirm across the way is one of the oldest
buildings in Bearton, a fetched old farmhouse
with no foundations from what I recall.
Is that where that's near?
Could you just clarify that please?
Thank you, Councillor Gormley.
You obviously know the village very well.
It is directly opposite that.
Public Speakers - 2:51:55
I believe that the heritage harm is being downplayed in this report and
that even less than substantial harm must still carry great weight under the
MPPF. I think officers have minimised this harm because it doesn't engage the
tilted balance but heritage harm still requires substantial weight in decision
making. The council's housing shortfall should not become an automatic
justification for overriding the development plan, the neighbourhood plan,
heritage conservation, the setting of heritage buildings,
landscape protection policies,
or the village's identity.
I'm glad that you've confirmed
that your neighbourhood plan is in place,
which was saved a lot later on.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:52:36
I always say, when we look,
and you've got about the heritage,
the landscape of that area,
and the accumulative impact of what two applications,
go on with the two applications.
Can you just expand a little bit on that landscape heritage sort of point there about wildlife
etc. because it is quite a prime site in the middle of Bearden.
It is a prime site and it is open countryside and officers admit that the design material
does not demonstrate a good scheme.
the report says that it does not convincingly demonstrate high quality
placemaking. It raises concerns regarding connectivity and would materially
require a different approach. This matters because you're being asked to
approve the principle of development without evidence that the site can even
Public Speakers - 2:53:30
deliver a policy compliant layout and that layout should never exist in open
countryside. There's not a shortage of local housing in Bearton, two
and a half thousand houses have come forward so much so that the parish had
to split and there's actually another application where it's not an
application yet that a consultation exercise at a further site just across
the field just down the field for another 60 homes and you know we need to
protect the integrity and the character of our villages.
And then, you got another question?
I think the council had three minutes, I'm going to ask a question to everyone, no I'm not, I'm just, I'm not.
But they're valid points. And then the, like you said, there's rights of way that go through there,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:54:28
that from what I understand they look like they used quite a lot and the school used them.
And you went on about the school about if this application did go ahead where those children
are going to go. But when we go about the heritage of that this is my last question.
Could we bring up the field from above please that was shown in green?
Not that one, not that one, that one, thank you.
When you look at that, I don't know if you know, this might be when I come back to technical,
but has that land been assessed for ancient dwellings?
Because when you look at the way the lines work around there, where that pond is, from what I see, the blob,
and then you see all the lines, do you know about that? Has that happened there?
I'm afraid I've got no idea if there are any ancient dwellings on that land.
Yeah, homestead.
I'll ask that in technical.
No, it's in the report.
It's actually in the report.
Oh right, okay.
Sorry, Judge.
No, if you want to clarify, you can do so in technical.
Okay, thank you.
I'll clarify that in question.
That's all I got at this point, Councillor.
Thank you.
Councillor Hinsane.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:55:40
A couple of points.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:55:44
Yes, to be consistent, as a member of this committee,
and I hope the committee itself,
on page 76, paragraph 235, it says,
the site lies outside the defined development boundary
in the May -Bearton neighbourhood plan.
And in the countryside, for the purpose of development plan,
and both are therefore conflicts with the neighbourhood plan
in this regard, and the veil of LPR,
local plan spatial strategy you would agree with that wouldn't you yes it
conflicts with the neighbourhood plan yeah conflicts with the valve and it's
Public Speakers - 2:56:21
not a site that's included in the the emerging local plan that's coming
forward now I've got two more questions my next question was was this put
forward for the call for sites number one and number two you say that the
reason the previous case was turned down and these things are very similar could
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:56:48
you go through those weeks okay so on this site the previous application that
Public Speakers - 2:56:55
was turned down I think dates back to 96 but the most recent but you know that I
believe a pill decision that affects this site because if you look at that
you're looking at one field, there's a red line down the middle of it, but it's
effectively one field and when you consider that next up is the other side
of the red line. So essentially the most recent appeal decision and I will
say that that appeal decision came through when we did not have a
five -year housing land supply at that time either. So it's a very
very similar position that we're in now.
Essentially, it was that the proposal
would cause significant harm
to the character and appearance of the area.
There you are.
Thank you, Councillor Ward.
You said something about 47 houses to 71 homes.
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:58:01
I can't what that means, three that's 47 and 71.
Second thing, you are obviously worried about the cumulative development.
And the third thing I was going to say is, are you worried about the amenities that it's
going to affect having, let's say, 47 or 71 dwellings?
And I'm sure you're already aware of the road traffic issues you have there.
Is there anything that has been taken into consideration, in your opinion, to make sure that is managed appropriately?
Because at the moment, it's very difficult to get through Bearton.
And also, I found that, you know, to Bearton, you know, looking at it and looking at the development,
Are you in fear for lettuce now slowly weaning to become a little town of itself?
Thank You councillor Khan so where I get the figure of 71 from is if you look at the image that's ahead of you
Public Speakers - 2:59:07
so the
47 are in the red edge, but
You must view it cumulatively because you know that the next application is coming forward and that's for the balance of the houses to the
hand side of it, it's effectively one field. So in the green part there. So it's
effectively one field, two applications totaling 71. Against the 95 ,000 we've got
to deliver us a drop in the ocean. You asked me that, you mentioned
amenities, well there are no amenities really in Britain, there's no shop. So
there's no shop, there's no surgery, the school is full. If children want to go to
school they're going to be driven, you want to go to a shop you're going to be
driven. Everybody in Beatton relies on private car. There's not even a pub at
the moment. There's an Indian restaurant. So unless you want to go for a curry
you're getting in your car and you might. You're getting in your car and you're
driving. You mentioned the traffic calming scheme. The traffic calming
scheme has not even passed an RSA3, Road Safety Audit 3 at the moment.
although one has been done and I have seen it and I would be completely
unsurprised if it did not recommend or if it did not highlight dangers that are
currently evident to anybody that has ever driven through Bearden but that's
not information that's in the public domain but it has it is in the public
domain that the RSA 3 has been done. Good okay no further questions for you.
Councillor Sosby again. Thank you Councillor for coming. You mentioned the neighbourhood plan
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:01:04
I believe earlier in the early deliberation. I just sat with it. Have you at the
Bearton neighbourhood plan in its, according to the report and that's all I've got to go on
it didn't put in any houses in the neighbourhood plan and then the report goes into
circumstances about the five -year land supply. Was there a reason, because you
expressed about the large amount of growth that Bearton had taken. Was that the,
and it's 2025 so it's very very close and we had a lot of discussions about
neighbourhood plans and it's quite new. Was the reason they didn't put any in
unless it's something you don't know was because they took the two thousand
houses and felt that they'd taken their share of the then development at that
point. I mean that would be to take two and a half thousand houses I would think
any community of around 800 dwellings would feel that they'd taken their share
Public Speakers - 3:02:08
but the neighbourhood plan does give a number of houses and
That would be considered
acceptable and sustainable growth to be a tonne, but it's nothing like this
And it's nothing like the the number of houses that we know will be coming our way in the in the new
plan and and we accept we know that there's a a
Bigger picture. There's a northern link road that the town
Needs to be delivered
But you know as with everything there needs to be considerations and which is
you know I understand why these opportunistic applications are coming in
now because there there is a perceived vacuum but I don't believe that the lack
of five -year housing land supply significantly outweighs all the
of this scheme and it should not be the only thing that this application turns
on and it certainly was not an obstacle to to the inspector finding against the
green field back in 2015 when we didn't have a five year housing land supply then.
I was going to ask Commissioner but you answered most of what I wanted to ask you when you spoke then so thank you.
Councillor Ward thank you for your time. Thank you Chairman. Thank you members.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:03:30
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:03:31
Can I call Sheila Cotton, please?
Public Speakers - 3:03:33
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:03:35
I'm going to apologise first because my report echoes Judy's so you can hear it all again.
Are you a councillor in the parish council? Yes parish councillor. Oh sorry I didn't refer to you as councillor.
That's alright. Okay so again you've got three minutes for your presentation. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 3:04:14
Our neighbourhood plan was approved in July 25 with 94 percent of voters agreeing to it.
It was also approved by Buckinghamshire council and the inspector. We were therefore disappointed
to see that the officers gave very little weight to this in their report. We've been encouraged by
Buckinghamshire Council to make this plan,
which I can tell you took almost 10 years to produce
for various reasons.
This site lies outside our development boundary
designating the plan.
The site also does not appear in the bout
or the recently drafted Buckinghamshire Local Plan.
Bittern Parish Council have already submitted
robust planning objections to the application,
which I hope you're all familiar with.
There are also 226 objections from members of the public.
The site was subject to a previous planning application some years ago and
nothing has changed to warrant approval this time around.
Bitten currently has some 800 properties. We now have four to five large
planning applications logged with Buckinghamshire Council which if all
approved would increase the figure by 34 % significantly impacting the look and
character of our village. We've had considerable growth in our doorstep with
2 ,450 houses on Kingsbrook representing the loss of considerable green space and views.
Barrett's David Wilson as part of their S1 agreement to Kingsbrook have provided significant traffic calming features through the village
deter traffic coming through the village away from Behan
encouraging the use of strategic routes provided on Kingsbrook roads.
The development is likely to generate more vehicles onto the main 418, not what traffic calming was designed for.
The proposed access to the development is very close to an already raised platform and two build -outs in this traffic calming and could prove very dangerous.
Beerton does not need or want any further development. We do not have the infrastructure to support it.
Our school is full to capacity, we have no shops, our bus service has been reduced, mobile phone reception is not good and the local GP surgeries are full to capacity.
The ICB agreed with us and have suggested mandible practise could be extended to taking
extra patients.
A surgery over three miles away with no direct transport links.
I don't think so.
I therefore urge you all to vote against accepting this application.
And as I've got a bit of time, I can just say we received notification that this was
coming to planning and the next one last Wednesday, one of them after five o 'clock, giving us
full working days to prepare for it. With a part -time clerk, it doesn't work. It's not
long enough. We need more notification. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:06:56
Questions?
Councillor O 'Brien.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:07:23
You said you reflect what you said, but what I would, can you expand on the village involvement
in the local plan and how many, you said there was 90 odd percent, was that of people who
voted or was that the whole village?
people voted yeah and I can't remember how many people voted but it was quite a lot it was a good turnout.
If you can expand on that I'll be very grateful. Well the reason it took a long time to produce
was two reasons. Covid obviously got in the way and at the start of it Kingsbrook was involved
because it was only a few houses but as time went on and it was decided that Kingsbrook have their
Public Speakers - 3:08:07
own parish council it became clear that we needed to keep this to bit and
because Kingsbrook just delayed on decisions all the time they wouldn't
cooperate with us to be honest so that's why it took so long the committee that
dealt with in they put they put plank and was few parish Councillors and the
We had a lot of help from them as well.
Thank you.
Councillor Gibbon.
You said that this application doesn't agree with the neighbourhood plan.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:08:47
Could you say the most important areas where it deviates from this plan?
Well it's outside our development boundary.
It's as easy as that Cathy.
Public Speakers - 3:08:58
You know it goes, we saw that from the plan earlier.
and it's intrusion into the open countryside on what is at the moment I
believe pastureland, the cows the other morning you know so it's it's just
doesn't fit in with the plan at all. Okay Councillor Smith. Thank you chair.
You're probably aware that this council has quite a good active travel
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:09:27
policy and I'm assuming that young people in Bearden would walk or cycle
maybe to Kingsbrook. From what you know about the the outline plan for
this development, how could a young person safely either walk or cycle to
the school or the Sports Centre or anywhere else for that matter? Your
views would be very helpful. Yeah we have had quite a lot of help from the council
and Barrett's providing walks to school. Unfortunately it doesn't work for
Public Speakers - 3:10:00
everybody as you probably know in your own area. We've got significant problems
on Burcaw Lane and Parsons Lane with school traffic. I'm thinking mostly in
terms of safety, safety given that the only entrance in and out is onto the
418. Some of the footpaths there, you can only walk single file, they're less
than this so you know people do hop in the car. Okay Councillor Gough. Thank you
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:10:31
Chair good afternoon, good evening Councillor. So just to enhance you brought up the
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:10:34
the highways issues about almost but could you expand on why the highways
traffic calming was put into place before this application coming? It was
put in place, as I said, by Barrett's as part of their West 106,
but it was requested by the parish council and general community because it was
just a speed trap. You know,
Public Speakers - 3:10:59
people used to whiz up and down and in the mornings it was always, well,
it still is a little bit congested. But the reason for that is that the,
that road is the A418, as you well know. Um, and it won't,
the A418 will soon be the Kingsbrook road.
And I don't think things will improve much there until that happens.
and we're told that's at least a year, maybe 18 months away.
So, yeah, I mean I quite like it.
Julie likes it, I know she does.
So, it's just a case of people that want to whizz through the village,
they're the ones that don't like it.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Srotley, you have to put your hand up first while you work.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:11:41
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:11:44
I was just just the interest you sound like you looked in the village a very long time.
Yep
The field that it's going in and it's the reason why I ask this question, I think it's got a field name
That a pasture name because we on our farm years ago
Everywhere got its own name and the reason it's got its own name
It was to do with what the land was used for historically. It might give me a clue to in the report
States archeological stuff and I'm quite interested in archeological stuff.
And if Phil's name might give us a clue to what might be there, if at all.
It's a very odd school question but I'm a very odd school bloke.
I've never had the name before. I don't know if anybody else has.
Phil's looking at me, he knows exactly what I'm saying.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Goughton, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:12:39
Right, can I call John Sylvester, please?
No, you've got me instead.
Oh, the other guy, is it?
No, he's not.
Mr. King.
Yeah.
Good afternoon.
I'm Tim Sherwood -King.
I'm a resident of Bearton, and I'm here, obviously, to object to the proposal.
Public Speakers - 3:13:03
If I can start, what is surprising and striking
about this case is that your officers
in their report have accepted many
of the harms residents have raised.
The report also confirms that this proposal conflicts
with the local plan and the Bearden neighbourhood plan.
The development plans should be starting points
for decision making under section 38 .6.
And the report admits fundamentally
that the application is contrary to spatial strategy.
The proposal scheme would extend development
into open countryside and harm the rural setting
and settlement identity of Bearton.
The report describes the impact as significant
and irreversible landscape -led harm
that is not capable of being adequately mitigated.
And these are the officer's own words.
This is not a new planning concern.
In 1996, the council refused an application on the site
for similar landscape harm
and lack of sustainability reasons.
The refusal concluded that those harms significantly
and demonstrably outweighed the housing benefits.
Your current officer's report confirms that many of these very same impacts still exist
today and so the officer's recommendation creates a serious contradiction.
The report also accepts that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and undermines
the newly adopted Bearden neighbourhood plan, yet still recommends approval, primarily because
of the temporary five -year housing land supply shortfall.
A housing supply shortfall should not automatically override
the development plan or the years of local democratic
planning that went into the neighbourhood plan,
especially given the negligible extent
to which this development could materially contribute
to the housing shortfall.
The report also admits that illustrative layout
does not convincingly demonstrate
so high quality development
and would require a materially different design approach.
So members, you're effectively being asked to approve
the principle of development without certainty
that a policy compliance scheme can even be achieved.
There are continuing concerns,
as we've heard, regarding traffic, health service capacity,
drainage, infrastructure, and the loss of grade two
agricultural land that all contribute to this proposal,
not meeting the standard for sustainable development.
In order that the professional responsibility
of the planning department are maintained
and the integrity of the members can be preserved,
I respectfully ask the committee to use the application.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:16:22
Thank you.
You mentioned a bit about the rural setting and the landscape, and certainly when you
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:16:47
I guess of the...
But if you go to the south, it is open to the road.
Sure.
Open to the road where the new development in Forest Gate, with 2 ,500 houses are built,
you're removing any separation.
Nice bit that kind of preserves something a bit.
But the question that I have really is for you, with your local knowledge, is that there
is a footpath shown that transverses the site from Cowley Close.
And for people in rural communities, walking on fields is really quite important, whether you've got a dog or not.
How well used would you say that footpath is and how much of a harm would be caused if that became a tarmac path?
Well, we have a dog that sits at our rear fence and barks at everybody that crosses the footpath.
Public Speakers - 3:17:44
and she barks a lot at the moment.
We walk the footpath every other day, at least.
The path is part of a general walk through
that part of Bearden.
There are connected paths.
Indeed, the other application, which we'll come onto,
has a linkage into these path networks.
It's a very important part.
It's part of the social aspect of living in Bearden.
It's part of the green open space.
And it's part of keeping the village identity as a village.
Perhaps you can advise me what you meant by integrity of members in making a decision.
I'm not quite sure what your words, and if I heard you correctly,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:18:37
you said something about protecting the integrity of the members in making a decision.
and I couldn't quite work out what that had to do with.
Would you explain, sorry I can't.
No, when you were talking, unless I be certain,
I apologise if I did, you said in objecting to it,
to something along the lines of protecting
the integrity of the members.
I weren't quite sure what you meant by that.
What I mean quite simply is that we have recently
put in place a neighbourhood development plan for Beerton.
Public Speakers - 3:19:16
That clearly sets out the objections of 94 % of the village to what is proposed.
Thank you. That clarified that.
And that's what I meant.
I was presumed that's what you meant.
In the integrity of the members who've done the local plan.
I didn't presume it was any outfit could have come over.
Well, as villagers you're asked to take a democratic point.
I wanted to clarify that because it is quite relevant.
And then you overrule it.
That's what's wrong.
OK, thank you.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:19:40
Counsellor Hussain?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:19:44
Thank you for your presentation.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:19:47
You state in your presentation that there
is a contradiction within the report from the officers
with the harm that they explain.
Can you expand on that for me, please?
Could you repeat the question, please?
Of course.
You said the officer's recommendation creates a serious contradiction to the report itself.
Can you expand on that?
I've seen the reform page 75 and 76, but you stated that specifically.
Can you expand on that?
Public Speakers - 3:20:32
Well, the officers talk about the nature of Biotena's village with open spaces and frontages,
and yet recommend a large development in terms of what you've been discussing for the last
two hours.
At the back, rear development, which adds very little to the amenity and the sustainability
of a village which has no services other than a school.
And it's a contradiction.
Why what appears to be an attempt
to knock back some of your five -year loss, et cetera,
et cetera, should you build x houses in green fields
at the back of a linear village?
Sorry?
The field is footpath and it is at the moment there is there are cows in there
at the moment grazing in there and it's usually used for grazing.
But the situation that we find ourselves in in this side of the table, this is a
speculative build and we're getting lots of speculative build because we do not
have a five -year land supply.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:21:45
The only way we can defend that is to demonstrate the harm.
Because the MPPF requires us to agree to the application,
because paragraph 11 is enacted.
So the only way forward is to look at every application
and try and demonstrate where harm exists.
Because if we can't, then it will be granted.
Now, the difference is we look at it,
and we put together with it our conditions.
And we can condition it a number of ways.
This may well go off and go to an appeal, and it comes back,
and it may have totally different conditions.
So we're having to operate in an environment
where this is not a designated site.
It's a speculative site.
But we've got to demonstrate harm.
And that is the difficulty we will find ourselves in.
because I need to build it and come in now and say I want to build on Councillor Gomsfield,
how can we demonstrate harm? And I think that's where we're coming from.
Well put simply, the nature of Beerton as a self -contained settlement will start to disappear.
Public Speakers - 3:23:00
It will merge with the 2 ,000 plus houses that have already been granted. It will merge with
and Bearden will cease to exist.
Okay, any further questions?
Councillor Gibbons?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:23:21
Yes, talking about harm, you mentioned highways
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:23:24
and traffic. Recently
myself and Councillor Ward had to go to
Bercot Laid, Parsons Lane, because parents were complaining about
dangers with the traffic and school children,
and so more houses would make this even more dangerous.
Do you have any views about why these situations
could not be mitigated?
Public Speakers - 3:23:58
Well, Birkett Lane is now becoming an increasing rat run
through from the Kingsbrook Road,
which has been explained, was designed to take the pressure off the 418 and was to
become the 418. It is a road now used extensively for parents to park their
cars. They park on a very dangerous bend as you come round. There is, I have
misled you, there is one amenity in Bearden and that is a coffee shop in the
the old chapel up on the 418 junction.
That leads to car parking down the road,
although they have a car park,
and the road becomes very dangerous and very difficult.
And we will see in the next application,
there is elderly housing in that area,
and the whole thing is unhelpful for them.
It is difficult because the road also contains
the recreation ground where there's a playground for very young children and
it makes it more and more treacherous for them to come and if you increase
cars you'll make the matter worse. Okay thank you.
Councillor Gough. Thank you very much. Could you talk about the area quite
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:25:20
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:25:22
eloquently but could you just expand on that a little bit more of what that area
is a concern like the loss of overall character,
historic value, because you said, you know,
you walk that way, there are footpaths
that go left to right and top to bottom,
and it seems to be, for those that wouldn't realise,
wouldn't you say it's like a central point of rural?
You can, there is a footpath across the site.
That footpath goes into Cowley Close
and into the road where the school is.
Public Speakers - 3:25:58
you can see into into that road the footpath crosses and
Goes on towards Burkett Lane and it goes into a series of other fields those other fields all form walkways
Around and it is a very pleasant board and if you take the case book development, which is to the south
there is a
passageway which actually has
replaced an old footpath which takes you ultimately into Kingsbrook. So you can, I would estimate
it's a 30 minute walk from where I live, walk to Kingsbrook. But you walk through countryside.
You leave the village, you walk through countryside, and then you meet the built up area of Kingsbrook.
This starts to remove all of that differential between one settlement and another.
Thank you very much. Well put. Thank you. Yeah, very good.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:27:06
Councillor Paul. Thank you for the indulgence, Chairman. It's just a tiny one, but I asked about schools earlier.
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:27:10
as you walk the path regularly, is that a route that children take to school that go to
Kingsbrook at present? They do and there is also a muddy lane. They don't go across it
Public Speakers - 3:27:27
to get their cars. Their cars are in Birkett Lane and they go down Muddy Lane which is the
recreational walk. You would use it if you lived in that side of Bearden and you wanted to go to the recreation ground.
You could do that. You could walk along that path through another connecting path
across the road and into the recreation ground and the playground.
Okay, thank you very much.
Sir, thank you for your time. Thank you. Can I call Ben Johnson, please?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:28:06
Okay. Mr Johnson, is that only just you speaking? It's me speaking, Chair, but I have my consultancy
team here to answer any technical questions if they are put to us.
Your team needs to return. We can only question you on what you say. On what I
say. Okay sure that's fine. Your team are not involved in that conversation. Okay as
points of clarification. Okay thank you. They can sit there by all means but they won't be able to say anything.
Thank you.
Okay well you have three minutes to make your presentation you can see the clock
behind me and obviously remain seated for points of clarification. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members.
Public Speakers - 3:29:29
Through a 15 -month determination period, your officers have worked with us stakeholders and statutory bodies to reach a recommendation for approval.
This recommendation is also subject to necessary conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement that is now in a final draught version.
Thanks to the work of your officers to assist with speed of delivery and certainty of much needed new homes to meet your five -year housing land supply shortfall.
The very need for affordable housing is not theoretical,
and it is not a perceived vacuum mentioned earlier.
As of March last year, there were 2 ,729 households
on the housing register in the Aylesbury Vale area alone.
Families face average waiting times
of between 14 to 21 months for an affordable home.
This has placed significant pressure
on temporary accommodation.
As of March, 2025, 441 families
were in temporary accommodation
with the council spending 8 .5 million pounds
in a single year between 23 and 24.
Against these concerning statistics,
the delivery of 25 % policy compliant affordable housing
for this modest scheme should be welcomed
by you as a council.
These homes will help meet an urgent local need
that represents significant weight
in the planning balance of the NPPF.
The proposal would also deliver wider public benefits.
These include the enhancement
of the existing public right of way.
It's not being removed.
a children's play area for new and existing residents to enjoy,
a 10 -metre landscape buffer along the eastern boundary,
over 60 new trees, energy -efficient homes and EV charging,
and 18 .5 % biodiversity net gain, almost doubling the statutory requirement.
The development will also secure significant financial contributions
towards local infrastructure, including education, healthcare and public transport.
Without new homes being built, financial contributions cannot be secured
by the council to address the concerns and issues stakeholders raise around the very
lack of infrastructure improvements needed.
This recommendation by your officers follows a detailed assessment of the planning balance.
The application has no statutory objections.
On landscape, the site is not subject to any landscape designation.
The proposals retain the key landscape assets, including the trees and the pond.
On heritage, the council's heritage officer reached the same conclusion as us, that there
would be no harm to nearby listed buildings and only a low level of less than substantial
home to the Bearton Conservation Area.
On drainage, the LLFA has no objection.
It is satisfied that the proposal would not increase flood risk on or off site.
In February of this year, your council commissioned a new and expanded settlement study as part
of the evidence base in your next local plan.
The study identifies a major urban extension of land directly to the north of Bearton at
this site for 8 ,875 homes.
By comparison, this outline application before you for up to 47 new homes represents a modest
and well -contained scheme for Bearton.
In the context of your significant five -year housing
land supply shortfall, the adverse impacts
of this application do not significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
when assessed against the NPPF.
My team, well, my team aren't going to be answering
any questions, but I thank you for your time.
Thank you, members and Chair.
Thank you very much.
Points of clarification for.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:32:42
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chairman.
You mentioned flooding on site and I know that that is quite a big concern for locals
who are familiar with what happens to that field at the moment and I see that the report
says that that could be managed appropriately through pumping.
being a lay person not understanding the technicalities.
It also mentions underwater storage of floodwater.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:33:20
I'm just curious to know where you pump to and
clearly the houses around that,
because presumably the bill will be slightly higher than the surrounding houses.
Can we be sure that there isn't any likely overspill
from those storage facilities,
given that our one in 100 year projections
are increasingly becoming one in five,
one in 10 year projections with the changing climate?
Yeah, the pumping station is not uncommon
on new developments.
Public Speakers - 3:33:57
It will link in with the existing infrastructure.
That's all been checked with our drainage consultant
and signed off with the LLFA.
There's conditions also attached to this outline application to take that to the detailed
reserve matters stage to then verify and confirm through that reserve matters application.
The sustainable urban drainage system that's proposed also ensures that no impact on existing
residents and those new residents will be impacted by drainage.
And certainly the location of where there is current surface water has been identified
and being addressed accordingly as part of that sustainable urban design system.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:34:42
Councillor Anderson. Thank you Chair. There's no doubt that Beardsley is one of the most beautiful
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 3:34:47
small villages in and around Ayles Creek. I frequently walk my dog through the proposed site.
I've seen the cattle walking about, shrews and squirrels, you name it. So how much damage honestly
Do you think that this development will do to the character of Bearden, if any at all?
I don't think it will do any damage. I think there will be impacts as part of this application that
Public Speakers - 3:35:09
the officer has very carefully considered as part of the 15 -month determination period that we have
been engaged with officers and with statutory consultees. I think those impacts set out what
those harms are and the level of harm. Those impacts have then been weighed against the benefits
and the level of benefit attributed to the application.
Therefore, I think that in the rounded on planning balance
and in accordance with the MPPF,
that the scheme is more than appropriate and acceptable.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Stosvick.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
You used to greatly about 25 % affordable.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:35:44
I personally didn't agree with it in the Vail Plan
when it was 25%.
and you might be aware of for areas of the county,
you get 40 % affordable.
You know, it's not great, 25 % affordable.
You've mentioned the housing crisis we've got.
Yeah, we have.
But you said with conditions,
you see that 25 % in some way, if it was to be agreed,
actually being tied to the people who live there,
because one of the problems we have is in all communities,
is we lose local people per se,
because affordable housing isn't always allocated
to the people who live there, and it's allocated by need.
So the benefits, the knock -on benefits that you allude to
often don't occur in the area where the development is.
I come from a community of Buckingham,
and we have quite a lot of affordable housing built,
because we've got a neighbourhood plan
with a 35 % affordable policy in it.
So we put policy into higher levels of affordable and we can defend that
Do you think that the 25 is going to really answer because it's?
You made a lot of it
You made a lot of the problems. We've got of it you accept the 25 percent afford with is really great
It's not much lip uplift and and its contribution will be minimal
That's the fault of the plan, but you must go your developer you go to other places have much more robust housing
policies so coming to North Buckinghamshire to develop which has only
got a 25 % affordable much cheaper than going to South Buckinghamshire to develop
which because we are now create ourselves as the development capital
chief capital of North but really because of our policies in the value of our plan.
Do you think that you'd agree that that's a very modest contribution?
Thank you.
Councillor SRI.
Thank you, Councillor.
It's what the Council's policy requires of us.
Public Speakers - 3:37:50
I'm a planner and I look to try and satisfy those policies that are required of us when
making planning applications.
That 25 % will be enshrined in the section 106 legal agreement that will follow through
with the Reserve Matters application.
The affordable housing officers that we work with as well as part of the outline application
also require us to satisfy the particular tenures and the particular mix of those affordable
homes and again we're led by the council so the 25 % is what policy is required of
us and therefore we are compliant.
I understand that Chairman it was mentioned by the use I can ask you
question as he mentioned it.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:38:31
Thank you very much.
You mentioned about the understanding, you went on about plans, you went on about neighbourhood
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:38:48
plan, the big policy, you went about giving money and all that sort of stuff, but not
once did I hear you mention with your consideration to the village.
You know, you said it was that there was a bit of a lack of understanding to the impact that this would have.
You never mentioned once of collaboration with the village or anything like that.
So that's that concerns me because all you interested the way you said.
And you also, if you could dig into a little bit of how this would impact the it would impact the conservation site that's nearby.
And also, you know, the buildings and stuff, there's a lot there.
but you never mentioned that once.
All you mentioned was about policy this and policy that.
So if you could expand a little bit more
of your consideration to the area.
And then you mentioned flooding again
about pumps and stuff.
Could you bring up a picture for me, please?
The one you took of the front of the field.
Thank you.
There.
So that is the gateway,
and you can see cattle are there, and it's very boggy and wet.
That field is quite a boggy field, and it has a pond in it
and a self -serving waterway that goes through it, a brook.
So I'd like to know how you're going to resolve those sort of issues.
It does flood.
If you could answer some of those, please.
Sure. Thank you, Councillor.
I had three minutes to present.
I know you did, yeah.
I'm just giving you a bit more time.
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Public Speakers - 3:40:23
So in terms of public engagement and collaboration, a programme of engagement was carried out with
the community prior to the submission of the application to ensure that all local residents
had the opportunity to view, discuss and comment on the proposals.
This included a leaflet distribution.
This included us creating a project website and the sharing of information and plans with
Beards and Parish Council and the local councillors.
Key engagement statistics included 121 visitors to the project website, 95 emails to the project
email address, two phone calls to the project hotline, 65 people attended the online presentation
that we undertook, 153 questions were submitted during the online presentation, 57 responses
to the survey about affordable housing in Bearton was received, positive feedback was
received in relation to the provision of affordable housing within Bearton with over 50 % of participants
and residents highlighting this as important and also praising that the new homes would
be in keeping with the style of surrounding development.
In relation to the state line, I appreciate you've got to...
Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
In terms of heritage...
He hasn't finished.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:41:31
Sorry, I thought you'd finished.
Yes, so in terms of heritage, both us and the applicant team and the heritage office
Public Speakers - 3:41:38
have assessed the potential heritage impact in line with national and local policy and
have reached the same conclusions.
Whilst potential for low level of less than substantial harm to the Bearden Conservation
area. This can only be at the lowest end of spectrum as key elements which contribute to
significance of the conservation area are preserved. Primary elements of significance
of the conservation area will not be affected. The proposal is only affecting a very small part
of wider rural setting and in an area already characterised by varied varied modern village
extensions. Visibility of new development from the conservation area is limited, is mostly set
further into the site behind existing modern development.
And in terms of your third question around drainage.
So a comprehensive flood risk assessment
and drainage strategy has been submitted
with the application which recognises
that the majority of the site is free from flood risk.
However, that a small area within the Southern Eastern part
of the site is at higher risk of surface water flooding
during extreme rainfall events.
No built residential development proposed
in this area is at higher risk of flooding sequential.
and there is no sequential approach to locating development
within the site that's necessary in this location.
The LNFA have no objection to indicative drainage strategy
submitted, subject to conditions requiring the submission
of a detailed drainage scheme,
which will be based on the final layout determined
at the reserve matters stage.
The winter groundwater monitoring and infiltration testing
will take place as part of the preparation
of detailed drain, sorry,
as part of the preparation of the detailed drainage scheme
at the reserve matter stage as well.
Thank you very much for that quite detailed
and we counteract that in our debate.
Thank you.
Councillor Hussain.
Couple of questions.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:43:28
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:43:31
One is you talk about the social element of 25%.
Is that social housing or is that just affordable housing?
So is that property 35 % of the property
going over to social housing, to an association,
or will that just be sort of managed as social housing?
Number one.
I can't understand.
Can we leave that to when the reserve matters comes back in?
Because we're only talking outline at the moment.
But as an outline, they've mentioned it as a selling point.
Yeah, they've mentioned it.
As a selling point.
Yeah.
All I wanted to know, I don't need to know in any more detail.
We're not talking about design or anything,
or where it is or how it is.
but in the outline you should be able to say whether it's affordable housing or
social housing
Okay, if you want to this number one it can be reviewed
Although it's only a
47 houses
What is your view on sustainability of the site with regards to services transport and schools?
as being mentioned
you'll make it through section 106,
we'll be making a contribution.
But as we mentioned by members,
and I have mentioned in full council,
most of the schools in Elsbury are full.
So where do the, how many children will be generated
by your development?
Thank you, Councillor.
In terms of the affordable housing,
that will be determined by the council
Public Speakers - 3:45:00
and it will be very largely dependent
and on what that local need is,
it's a requirement for affordable housing
and that will be broken into the particular tenures
and housing mix that's required.
In terms of sustainability,
Beardson is identified as a medium village
within the veil of the Elsbury local plan,
which are expected to accommodate growth
at a scale appropriate to character and appearance,
defined as having some provision
for key services and facilities,
making them moderately sustainable locations
for development.
The village has a range of local facilities,
including a restaurant, coffee shop, a primary school with around 300 pupils, a sports centre
and a village hall. Good public transport links to larger settlements with regular busses into
Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Leighton, Buzzard and Wing. The closest bus stop to the site is situated
approximately 200 metres from the site entrance. An Aylesbury rail station is a short cycle or
bus ride away with regular services into London, Aylesbury Vale Parkway, Princess, Risborough,
High Wycombe and amongst others. Okay thank you very much. Councillor
Did I hear correctly when you said there's no harm to the village because even the report eludes there is.
Thank you, Councillor Kahn. I said that there is harm. It's been identified in the officer's report as to the level of harm across those various items that have been set out in the officer's report.
I can go through those if you would like me to.
I've got one there, can I answer, did you get yours?
Yeah, thank you Chairman, just a bit of a follow up to the question I asked you earlier,
you suggested that you don't think this development will harm the character of the village, so
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 3:46:44
are you inadvertently suggesting that this site currently isn't essential to the character
of the village as it stands.
I think every site in Bearden contributes to character
and character has a range of themes.
Public Speakers - 3:47:02
So that can be green infrastructure
around open space, public rights of way, play space.
It can be housing and the materials and style of housing.
This is simply an outline application simply
for access as a detail to be approved by you.
We're proposing a number of your homes up to 47
but that will be dealt with at the reserve metas stage.
Yeah, so obviously just a brief follow up.
So obviously we've got, you correctly identified
that every green space is important
to the character of the village right,
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 3:47:32
but do you not also accept that based on your own mission,
this proposal is depriving bits of that exact thing?
No, I don't.
I think it's maintaining and enhancing
the public right of way that goes through the site
Public Speakers - 3:47:49
that other people this afternoon have talked about
how important that is, how well used that is.
This will ensure that that public right of way
is maintained and enhanced and that it can be enjoyed
by not only the new residents,
but existing residents as well.
Just without the green?
Without the land that's currently used for 10 cows, yes.
Thanks, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chairman, for letting me have another go.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:48:17
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:48:21
The thing that is concerning me, I suppose, here is about the safety of people who would live on this site and the 418.
Did you at any stage consider some alternative way to get on and off of this particular patch of land?
Or can it only be accessed through a splayed junction?
As we all know, always used for speeding traffic, whizzing around corners, causing terrible problems.
but is that the only option for this site,
a splays junction onto a really hazardous road?
Yeah, we consider as part of any site coming forward
for new housing all of the constraints and opportunities
Public Speakers - 3:49:02
across all aspects of highway safety.
In this instance, our highways consultant
in engaging with the highways authority
found it to be perfectly safe.
A road safety audit was undertaken.
Visibility splays have also been assessed
to ensure that safety in and out of the site is acceptable.
So there is no objection and therefore,
in our professional opinion,
perfectly reasonable to provide access in this location.
The reason why I wanted to come back really
is because it really bothers me
that we're building just houses, not communities.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:49:33
And that actually people that are living here,
their children are gonna need to cycle or walk to school.
And I don't know about you,
but I wouldn't let any child cycle or walk along the 418
as it stands at the moment.
And that seems to be the only solution here.
I'm just surprised that you haven't considered
some other means of the people living in this site
getting to and from school, all the other facilities,
sports centres, whatever else.
Are there contributions that would be made
to the wider highways network as part of our application
Public Speakers - 3:50:09
and other applications to build on that safety
and that concern that some residents or community
might have. I'd say that houses build communities. Without housing there
is no community because no one would live there. So contributing towards what
is already a community I think is...
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:50:34
Okay thank you very much. Finally, Councillor Gibbon. Yes, you mentioned schools and I
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:50:39
haven't really heard a solution to the fact that the schools are already full.
it looks like we're still going to have to send additional children to other schools like Mandeville.
But I just wondered what your, if you had any sort of comments to make about the problem that's also with GP surgeries,
because they're also full and just throwing a bit of money at it isn't really going to solve the situation where people can't get into surgeries
or have to travel a very, very long way to find one that they could actually go to.
Thanks, Councillor Gibbon.
We have this problem or this challenge on a lot of our applications that we engage with
Public Speakers - 3:51:15
the NHS and the ICB, and they will inform us as to whether a facility is required on
site for new developments of scale or whether contributions are considered appropriate.
And in this instance, the consultation has been undertaken and they've confirmed that
financial contribution would be acceptable and therefore no objection from them.
Okay thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:51:41
Gentlemen thank you for your time.
Cllr Raj Khan - 3:51:45
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:51:47
Colleagues we're going to have a short break because I think we've been here a long time
and so we'll have a break for about 10 minutes.

5 24/03787/AOP - Land South Of Aylesbury Road, Bierton, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:51:59
Okay, let's resume into technical questions.
Okay, Councillor Powell. I'll keep it very short Chairman. I'd just like to understand
from the officers why they have attached limited weight to the conflict with the neighbourhood
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:52:42
development plan which is more recent than the last and the VALP when it clearly conflicts
with with both okay has anyone else got an open plan question
council Hussain on page 76 paragraph 2 3 5 it states quite clearly from the
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:53:03
report the site is outside the defined development boundary in the maid
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:53:05
Bearden neighbourhood plan okay and the countryside for the purpose of the
development plan the proposal therefore conflicts with the neighbourhood plan in
disregard and the veil of Ellsbury Local Plan which is the point my colleague made.
So my point, my question, my technical question is whereas in the previous application the
local plan was extant, it had run out, this one is not extant so I'm just adding to my
colleague's question.
Fine, thank you.
So in terms of the conflict with the neighbourhood plan, I'm just going to draw members attention
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:53:45
to the fact that reference has been made earlier in the conversation today about the Buckingham
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:53:49
neighbourhood plan and how new that was at the time of the Baughton Road appeal decision.
Now it stems back to the fact that we don't have a five year housing land supply as a
council and therefore what I'm about to say in terms of consistency with the approach
from the Boughton Road Appeal Decision is directly applicable insofar as why we've
taken the approach as officers in the officer report towards the Bearton Neighbourhood Plan.
So in the Boughton Road Appeal Decision, the Inspector makes reference to say, paragraph
14 of the framework states that where the criteria are met, the adverse impact of allowing
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits.
However, even using the paragraph 14 emphasis
for my paragraph 11 D2 balance,
in this instance, the adverse impacts
of allowing development, including in conflict
with the neighbourhood plan, would still not significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the very substantial benefits.
This is particularly so given the principal policy
with which it is alleged there is conflict,
is policy HP1 by virtue of the fact
that the proposal is not within the settlement
limit of Buckingham, to which I have given limited weight
due to the substantial lack of five -year housing land supply.
Consequently, while the proposal would conflict
with the development plan as a whole,
there are considerations, including the framework,
which outweigh that conflict, and therefore the appeal
should be allowed.
So in terms of the comparisons, the Bearden neighbourhood plan
Is very new only having been made last year. However, it does not make allocations within it
So having regards paragraph 14 of the MPPF
That is not engaged in this instance, but it was with regards to the Buckingham neighbourhood plan
So that additional level of protection under paragraph 14 of the MPPF
Was given weight in the Boulton Road appeal decision
We cannot give that same weight, that additional layer of protection, with regards to the Bearton neighbourhood plan.
And yet there are very, very clear parallels that we have, as officers, identified benefits of the scheme,
as set out in the latter part of the report, from paragraphs 2, 3, 8 onwards,
which, in parallel to what the inspector said for the Buckingham decision at Boughton Road,
we have gone on to then reduce the weight we have given to the Bearton
neighbourhood plan and in the tilted balance have given weight to the
benefits of the scheme in front of you today. So in so far as there is a
conflict with the Bearton neighbourhood plan we have had to reduce the weight
that's attributed to the policies in that plan by virtue of the lack of
housing land supply. Okay, Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you, chair. There are two
things that are really concerned me about significant, what appeared to me to
be significant harm, and that's the the road and flooding. Now in terms of the
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:56:59
road, the splayed junction and the lack of any other access seems to be a
considerable concern and I'm shocked really that highways haven't given it a greater
Greater level of concern and I'm assuming that's why there's a big race platform there
I just wondered no question really is is and again, I feel like I ought to know this but
Has there been any?
study done about whether the
Elsbury circular road link road is going to make things worse or better in terms of traffic on the
Is it likely to alleviate the very dangerous situation or make it better
in terms of that access to this
Proposed site and the second thing about flooding really is that we've heard that the mitigation the way that to deal with that is
To use a pump. Can you can you just explain to us?
In your experience who maintains?
Replaces pumps is it something that will go to the parish council
Is it a management company and with the disasters that we've seen with management companies and this type of infrastructure?
Yeah
You know one of the things that we've had and you would be aware of with mention in the
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:58:29
Baughton Road application was the concern about the sewage and drainage capacity to
cope with that and then in conditions there was gravity in conditions put upon it because
you couldn't occupy the site because you hadn't demonstrated and that's been a running theme
in Buckingham and Maize Morton and different areas in North Bucks because of the capacity.
I'm not a local Alsbury member so I don't know and studied the capacity of the sewage works and
maintenance in Alsbury area. I can imagine it's pretty similar. I can imagine it's under as much
strain as bucketing because most of these things are put in historically and aren't coping. There
is you know there is a concern that I have with those things is if sewage and
drainage doesn't cope and we the inverted effect of these things can be
that more development increases the amount of spills into the environment.
Thank you Councillor Stutchbury. If I take those in reverse to start with and so
with regards to the Mr. Chairman could I just speak to you for a minute please.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 3:59:43
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:00:07
Coming up in time, Hicks.
So in terms of paragraphs 182 to 184
of the Office of Report,
it covers off about the drainage strategy
for foul drainage.
Thames Water have said that in this incident,
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:00:25
there is capacity in the network.
So unlike a Borton Road where a condition was needed
to prevent occupation until such capacity
had been built into the network,
that is not needed in this instance.
Rather, it's as part of the Reserve Matters
application stage that that detailed scheme
will come forwards.
Then insofar as the maintenance of that at this point. I'm unsure. I think it is probably part of the condition that will come forwards
Obviously Thames water are satisfied that
Sufficient arrangements can be made and we can certainly secure additional details around maintenance for in due course
There is already a condition about surface water recommended within
So that's covered off in the condition. The details will be provided as part of that.
Just in response to that, and it's not anywhere crazy in your report,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:01:24
Thames Water hasn't exactly got the robust representation for managing water and stuff
that they would have liked, I'm sure we could quote that. So how much weight can we put on
the fact that they say they're able to cope because I think it is important the
environment around Alsbury is the same environment where I live in Buckingham
and it's got lots of water courses so how much we can only take them at their
what they say but I worry that that that that that promise is quite thin based
upon the statistics that we can all read. I understand council's statutory but they
are the statutory undertaker so we have to take what they have said at face
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:02:08
value of our freight. Thank you I think I'm following on from Robin because it's
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:02:14
Thames Walsh who's going to be doing the drainage and sewers isn't it? How can we
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 4:02:20
actually ensure that they're actually going to do this in view of that appalling work
schedule? As I've said councillor Cornell unfortunately we have to take what they
say at face value and they are the statutory undertakers and we have to
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:02:33
upon them making adequate provision. We can't say we can't put any at any stage
saying they have to make sure that they abide by what they've said. I mean insofar
as we we will receive a scheme as part of any subsequent reserve matters
proposal that sets out the drainage arrangements we would consult Thames
Water on the acceptability of those proposed arrangements and then insofar as
it is for the developer to provide that scheme on site that is how it works. It's
necessarily Thames water who would be providing everything per se themselves
whether it's the scheme in conjunction with the developer that will be required
to come forwards. Okay thank you. It's something that we've covered and if you
look at this next application they've actually covered it under there which
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:03:18
has got the plan for it as well so it's very similar. Perfect and then Councillor
Smith in terms of your query about the modelling for the Link Road I don't know
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:03:29
is the answer but in terms of what we have in front of us today the highways team have
reviewed the proposal in detail they are content with those arrangements onto Elsbury road so I
highly accept the concerns raised but we have to listen to what our specialist consortees have
advised us and they are not raising highway safety concerns. Okay Councillor Gibbon.
Yes, I'm still concerned about the contributions to do with sort of healthcare because I don't
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:03:58
feel that just putting money at it is going to solve anything.
Is there anything else that can be done to sort of alleviate that situation or not other
than just a sum of money, a small sum of money?
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
A couple of points.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:04:19
One is, yeah, I'm fully aware that the detail plans come
on pumping, et cetera, and who's responsible for it.
Normandy's a management company.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:04:25
The only thing I would say is,
last time I was concerned with another hat on,
it was actually the County Council, as was then,
now the Bubbishing Council,
who superseded what Tim's water wanted.
I have two questions that are technical.
One is, how confident are the officers
in the sustainability of this site with regards to things like has been raised
by colleagues with regards to things like education health etc bearing in
mind that if you were to go on the Bucks Council website right now look at the
spreadsheet for primary schools and secondary schools every single school in
Aylesbury and its surrounding areas is full apart from the odd one or two
places so a
Small development like this making a contribution is not going to develop a class or two classes
So how confident are you that the children that this development will generate are going to be looked after?
No to with the health infrastructure again
Dentistry there is none zero and number two
three health -wise it was mentioned going to mandible surgery good luck into
mandible surgery from this site at any time during the rush hour in the morning
afternoon you're talking an hour and a half journey unless you walk and if
you're ill you're not going to be walking so how confident are the
officers with regards to sustainability thank you councillor Hussein so with
With regards to health and Councillor Gibbon,
I know it's your question too.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:06:07
We did get input from the relevant NHS trust
and they have identified for up to 47 new dwellings
that will increase the population by an estimated 118 people
and they've acknowledged that this will have an impact
on acute and community healthcare in the following areas.
So cancer services, inpatient beds, diagnostics
and therapy services.
And as a result, they have identified the contributions of £61 ,525 would be required.
It's obviously not our role as planning officers to undertake that calculation.
Rather, we rely upon input from those specialists, and that's what they've identified as being
needed to mitigate the impact of the development on healthcare.
Dentistry is not included within that, and unfortunately, that's just simply not something
we're able to secure contributions for in the absence of such a request.
And with regards to education, I hold acknowledge that it's been identified as zero capacity in terms of the school situation.
Unfortunately, it is one of those again where we as a planning team, it's not on us to identify exactly where children will be taken to school.
Rather, this development can only mitigate its own impact by making the necessary contributions in line with what is needed.
and that is what is being proposed in terms of the officer reports outlining
that the necessary contributions will need to be negotiated and secured by a
league agreement so I'm sorry I can't give any additional detail. Okay thank
you very much. Councillor Gough. Thank you Chairman just a couple of things.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:07:42
Just indulge me a little bit. I'm just shocked at some of the heritage officers
comments that it hasn't affected, it won't affect like Badrick's farmhouse and the church.
You know, the concern that I have is with this highways improvement or not improvement
could cause damage to that property and the officer hasn't taken that into consideration.
He's got about visual look, well that's one thing, but he hasn't looked to what the
impact of that sort of could do to to that property or further down the road it could
do. I just know for a fact that that house hasn't got no foundation it's got a live
foundation so that's just a bit of my knowledge. And then another thing I'm
quite concerned about is that this field is quite key it's a very historical site
there for that village is a key point of that village and I'm just surprised yet
again that the within the archeological notification area that more work hasn't
gone in to cheque about the any remains and that you know it's a sack or sacks
activity and stuff a lot more work hasn't going to go into I know they're
saying they would do that at a later stage but you're asking us to consider
something now so if we go yes next week we might have is is that our
logical area dug up that will succeed so I wish more work had gone into that
domain ad decision -making yet again a bit easier and also the pro I just want to
bring something to your attention you could help me on this one at the
proposal conflicts with s2 s3 d3 of the valve and also p1 and h02 of the beer
and neighbourhood plan. So again, have those sort of things been looked into when it comes
to that? What are my concerns on technical at this point?
So if I could start with archaeology, paragraphs 133 and 134 of the officer report do identify
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:09:56
that the site falls within an archeological notification area. And on this occasion, actually
prior to the application coming to committee today,
trial trenching has been undertaken.
Now that's something that we wouldn't necessarily
always require to be undertaken prior to the determination
of an application.
Sometimes that's secured by condition.
It depends upon what likely level of risk we think there is
with regards to the presence of archeological assets.
But it's when you look at that photo from above,
it's quite clear that there is something there.
Understood.
And I think that's where in terms of paragraph sort of one three four acknowledges and that there
There has been subsequent
Geophysical survey and trial trenching identified evidence of Saxon activity in that site
So there is an acknowledgement that there there is something there
And but in line with what the archaeology team have reviewed and commented upon they have said that the development would result in harm
To these remains through their loss that's acknowledged
However, the remains identified are not of such significance that preservation in situ is required.
So in this instance, I think it's in condition 24 that is recommended,
actually goes on to then secure the appropriate next steps with regards to archaeology.
But it's not of sufficient importance what is on that site to effectively sterilise that site by virtue of archeological assets.
Okay, thank you. Sorry, Councillor. Please manage to go back on the listed building side of things.
Sorry. Please manage to come back on the listed building side of things.
I know that you referenced about the lack of foundations on the property to the other side of where the race table would go.
Unfortunately, that's not something that we can have regard to at this point in time.
So because it is works that are within the highway themselves and not actually impacting that listed building,
sort of as a homeowner undertaking works, it's simply not something we can have regard
to in that sense.
But you still have to look at the impact of what it possibly could do. They talk about
visual etc could have an impact. I understand what you're saying.
You can have a bad impact on the setting and that's the point. So in terms of the visual
side that you've said, we acknowledge that the proposal has an impact on the setting
of the property.
It's okay to look at a building from across the road but to smash it to pieces in other
ways.
That's down the highways, Councillor.
Yeah, okay. Councillor Shiffley, you said you had another...
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:12:29
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:12:32
I was going back on the archaeology and the veil of how to plan B...
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:12:35
B1 and the respect to the archaeology there and then the plan goes to B2, you know, design and heritage.
and they have done some trenching on there and we won't know what what that's
given up but we have I'm minded to the fact that HS2 and different stuff
delivered us hell of a lot of archaeology around Harrisbury and we found out not
only do you know it's nothing to do with the site but we found out not only did
we have a church and another church and then a pagan thing and he's obviously
obviously quite rich with this stuff so I share my colleagues interest in this because um um
I'm trenching, trenching doesn't always get what you've got there because then you only just the
area that you've trenched and it gives you a pacific outlay. I walk around I'm annoying with
archaeologists I always go and look where they are um and I because I want to be bold really um
But I do pay a lot of attention to it. I'm worried that the trenching is sufficient.
And if it went one way in conditions, I think that
and GFS and stuff tends to show you stuff a lot better because Phil and I worked on land for
years. You can tell when a piece of land has got something going on underneath it. You know,
very much like when they're back to the Broughton Road thing, Phil and I stood there in the field
and identified where there's ideology there.
You know...
Yeah, but it is actually identified, and they're now going to do something.
I know, but once it's lost, it's lost.
Yeah, I know.
Councillor.
Quick one, yeah.
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:14:27
And it's really about what level of harm should be considered,
given what we've heard from the applicant and the parish council,
that it seems that this site doesn't really comply with our policies on active travel
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:14:47
in terms of access to and from the site, but also in terms of our broader policies around place setting.
It is an isolated little island in the middle, not really connected to anything,
and I think we heard earlier that it won't be connected to the proposed site next to it either.
there'll be no linkage. So how is it is there a harm element to that failure to
comply with those very basic place -setting policies that we have in
the Council? So as alluded to by the applicant earlier on, Beeton is
identified in the Vale of Aylesbury local plan as being a moderately sustainable
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:15:29
location for new development and insofar as there are footpaths that do go
West and East from the site which would be enhanced as part of this scheme in order to link in with the wider footpath network
In order to facilitate access to services and facilities
Pardon and
Bicycles, there are footpaths. You're not allowed to cycle. No, not all of it
So some of it is there are designated cycleways further along to the west
further along that road but no as you correctly identified you can't cycle on
footways but the highways officer has reviewed the proposal and they have not
raised a concern with regards to the sustainability of the site rather they
have set out that there are lit footways on both sides of Aylesbury Road a three
metre wide footway is proposed across the Aylesbury Road site frontage with
with the crossing of tactile paving then in place.
So in terms of pedestrian accessibility,
they have said in relation to cycling,
there is existing cycling infrastructure along Aylesbury Road
and additional cycle infrastructure is proposed
as part of the Bearden Traffic Calming Scheme.
And so in terms of that actually being provision made
to promote sustainable modes of transport,
that is already either coming forwards
or would be provided as part of the scheme.
It's yes, it's from our perspective,
there is a conflict with a spatial strategy but actually we have reduced
the harm right down by virtue of the proximity of this site to the existing
built -up area of the settlement. Okay.
Councillor Muhann. Thank you Chairman. I just want to follow on from
Councillor Cornell where she queried Thames Water and what they were going to do and
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:17:19
weren't going to do and you said Laura that we would have to take the Thames
waters word for it. Could we not put a condition in there if we were minded to
approve this application could we not put a condition in there that no houses
would be occupied until Thames water had carried out the necessary improvements.
So those two conditions, Councillor Filius kindly referred to, relate to the surface
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:18:08
water schemes, so in terms of surface water drainage proposals.
With regards to foul, unfortunately, we can't hold a developer to ransom, as it were, on
that point.
I mean, in effect, we can require the drainage scheme as part of the reserve matters to be
delivered prior to the houses being occupied so that we ensure the infrastructure is in
place on site.
In terms of then actually the wider capacity within the network, that is a Thames Water
point, and that's a bit that we can't hold developers to ransom about because that is
their duty as a statutory undertaker to ensure that there is capacity within the wider network.
The applicants for this application can only be held responsible for what is within their
jurisdiction in the red line of the application site.
Okay, so just let me be clear here. The condition could say, and probably would say if we're
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:19:04
we were reminded to approve the application, that no unit would be occupied. Is that right?
No unit would be occupied until Thames Water had carried out the necessary, which is basically
what I asked a couple of seconds ago. The condition can't require Thames Water to do
anything. The condition can only require the applicant. Well, that's what I'm saying. We
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:19:27
could require so that would put pressure on the applicant then to put pressure on
the utility companies. Yes in adversity in turn it could do that. I'll rest my case.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 4:19:37
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:19:46
Yeah just question on construction really chair with the out of our
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:19:51
policies H6A, H6B and H6C which are all about to do with housing mix, housing types and accessibility.
You know I'm keen on accessibility. I mean the thing with the way we're doing this application
and I believe you'll tell me many of that will be done with conditions that we can't take any of
that in consideration but the housing mix I think we touched on in discussions around social housing
which is very key. And the housing for older people in the Vale is pretty, I'm
not looking for any of myself at the moment, but they are very much in
demand. And also the accessibility, will we be in a position for you Chair to if
that was the case that we can put some hefty conditions because one of the
things you need with houses is to make sure the doors are wide enough to
get a wheelchair through, make sure that they can be accessible.
I know there are policies in the Vail Plan for that, but
are we certain enough that we'll have enough weight to?
Yeah, thank you.
Right, let's move on.
Let's see on the technical, we're going to go to open debate.
No, cancer can't.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:21:17
Okay, thank you, Chair. I'm going to first of all say a very big thank you to all the
Cllr Raj Khan - 4:21:27
residents of Bearden for indulging in such time. It shows their conviction to what they
believe in. I have been privileged to be the local member for about eight years in Bearden,
So I feel I'm equally an expert in representing the views
that I hear their side and the agent side
and our deliberation.
I think to put 47 houses,
we'll put a huge amount of pressure
on the infrastructure there.
It is already identified that harm will be done
within our report.
I think that although this is a scheduled application,
we have to give due consideration to all factors.
The local member has already said that the nearest surgery
that we get places is Mandeville.
Councillor Hussain has said,
you'll be lucky to get there in an hour and a half.
The highway, we have expert advisors telling us
what's right, what can be done, what can possibly be done.
This is not a reflection in any way upon our officers.
I think our officers are doing a sterling job
and they need to, you know, where we disagree with them,
it's not through their lack of knowledge,
it's what we have expertise to be here as laymen.
I feel very strongly on this case.
Having stopped, you know, the previous case we had
in Ivingham where this affected one house.
This is going to affect 47 houses.
This is going to put undue pressures on all our amenities.
And someone who's represented Bearden myself,
I don't think there is a capacity to be able
to put 47 houses there.
I think it would be a hugely dangerous decision to make
on the basis of some advices we're getting.
You're getting the real advice from the community,
from the town council, those who actually live there.
Local member, local members, there's two of them.
Ex -member, I've been a member there,
and I frequently use Bearden, even recently,
to enjoy their recreation.
I think it will be a sad loss
to lose our beautiful villages,
and we will be merging it into towns.
That's not what it's there for.
They want their autonomy, and so they should.
But the infrastructure highway is my biggest concern,
and I would now want to find words,
and I'm sure legal or someone will advise me,
to say I formally disagree with the office's agreement,
and therefore I'm asking this to be rejected.
So whatever way you want to put words,
but I would want to put a formal objection to this.
I can ask you to hold to that thought,
because I think we need to have more debate about it
rather than just one.
Yes, sir.
So I think we need to have a greater debate.
I'm happy to come back to you at some stage.
All right.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:24:48
Chancellor Isai.
I am not going to be,
and my emails are full of people
who are trying to find housing.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:25:03
And that's one of the biggest issues we've got
in the county, and particularly in the town.
But against that, I've got to weigh the fact
that I have to be consistent.
And as, because one of the greatest criticisms
we get as politicians is that we're not inconsistent.
And the other thing I want to state for the record
is the report as read is a very good report
and I am concerned that the real harms outlined
on page 75 and 76 are outweighed by one particular paragraph,
one particular line, which is the housing numbers.
As Councillor Carnes put it and other colleagues will put
that what figures on the page and in the computer
don't demonstrate is the real lives of people living.
And like I state, most of us live in the area,
know the area, and to kind of,
61 ,000 contribution towards health
is not even a GP salary.
So God knows what that's supposed to be towards.
GP salary starts at 85 ,000.
So God knows what that is supposed to be towards.
And if it's a neary surgery, it's a Mandeville,
I am a member of, by the way.
And I live just down the road on Bearden Road.
An hour and a half, two hours sometimes,
if there's been an accident or HS2 has done one
of their standard traffic lights somewhere.
That's one thing.
The other thing is the school infrastructure, again.
I fully understand the officer's point, which is we are given our parameters.
We have followed those parameters, and those parameters make sense to us.
But again, real lives being lived, this will generate a number of children,
and then God knows where they're going to go to go to school.
And safely, Councillor Smith's point of how they're going
to get to school safely is a mystery to me.
Lastly, we've all around this table have talked
about neighbourhood plans, as we are local members
of various parishes, and we work hard with our local,
with the encouragement of the Buckinghamshire Council
to develop their plans, and we are well beholden
to then ignore them, even though, like I said,
the legal officers made a very strong case
that the weight given to them is less because of a paragraph
of Section 11, paragraph D, I think she was mentioned.
I can't do that.
As a lay member, I say this is the wrong development
in the wrong place.
Apart from the fact of detracting from the village itself
and turning into a bigger conurbation,
I think the harms outlined on page 75 to 76
is of significant weight and to be consistent
with my earlier vote and earlier application,
even though we take them as individual and on their merits,
but there must be a train of thought
through everything we do,
I will be opposing this application.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Anderson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:28:36
I think it's worth giving credit to some of the speakers
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 4:28:39
that we've had today that demonstrated compelling reasons
for us to refuse the application,
namely Councillor Ward and Councillor Cotton.
I understand the pressure that Bearden,
Aylesbury and the north of Bucks is facing
because of central housing targets.
There's very little we can do on that front,
but that doesn't mean that we should be destroying
the character, identity of these beautiful villages
that even Bearden have already got limited facilities
with its schooling, as we've already said about health,
whether it's funding a dentistry operation
or something like that.
You know, I believe in neighbourhood plans.
I believe in making sure that local people
have local say and that our local authorities,
our parish councils, their work in putting in
a neighbourhood plan has to count for something.
Beeson spent 10 years drafting their neighbourhood plan.
10 years.
That counts for something.
You know, you look at Watermeath,
who are just about to put their neighbourhood plan forward.
You look at areas like Kingsbrook
and some of these new builds.
We have to give areas the ability to defend themselves.
Be it and doesn't have the infrastructure
to be able to cope with 47, 71,
or even more housing developments.
And unfortunately, whether we like it or not,
neighbourhood plans have to count for something.
And I truly believe that we should not
approve this application.
I do think we should refuse the office's recommendation.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Gibbon.
Yes, just coming back to the points that Councillor Smith and Councillor Hussain mentioned about safety and cycling.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:30:17
Just in case people know, the cycle lane on where the traffic carving is in Bearden isn't safe.
And in fact, they had to move the safety bollards because the road isn't safe.
So that is not a suitable way for children to go to school.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Gormley.
Thank you, Chair.
So, yeah, this is already interesting.
Like we talked about the Labour Plan,
Councillor Smith was right from so bringing up transport strategy
out there because of the main road.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:30:53
For those that didn't realise that there is a cycleway along there
that was regarded as dangerous.
I'd have some bollards on that taken down because it is quite dangerous on there.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:31:03
But what I'd like to just remind my colleagues is that Beeton, unlike many other lovely little
villages around the outskirts of Aylesbury, are our villages. They are a community that
just sat there, whether they've been there 200, 300 or 400, they're our small villages.
And it's quite clear listening to those from the village, the speakers today, that although it's a
field, it's a central field of that village. There's walkways that go for it,
there's historic value and stuff like that. So and it's used, it's enjoyed.
We know that the children from the school use that as part of their
cross -country course, that I remember, and it's used, it's valued as a heritage
asset. There's also, and it concerns me that there's a beautiful church just down
the road at St. James's and I go on about Banderics Farm because it is a
beautiful farmhouse just across the way from there and some of these improvements
could damage that there. Another asset of the village. When we talk about other
planning applications of new applications in different areas, something
we're driven to remind us that we need green space in those areas too. If we're
agreeing to have 600, 200 or 300 houses,
what's one of our key areas we have to look at
is green space, play area and stuff.
And there we could be possibly now
taking away a key green space infrastructure
of that village.
And I'm sorry, I can't agree with what's,
that needs to be preserved.
We don't want to urbanise a village
just outside Ellsbury.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:32:59
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:33:01
Thank you, Chairman. Just a point really on going back in time to the Aylesbury Vale
District Council days where promises were made regarding the development of
Kingsborough which affected Bearden and promises were made that there be no
further burden on building in Bearden. I'm led to believe at this
at four different planning applications today possibly,
totaling some 220 odd houses.
So, you know, I just thought I'd throw that spanner
in the works just to make a point that for my money
then I should probably vote against this application.
Thank you for the indulgence Chairman. I'm just going through my notes again.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:34:02
So I'm really troubled about the conflict with the neighbourhood development plan in this case.
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:34:07
But what the legal officer reminded us is that there's an issue where a neighbourhood plan doesn't provide for any development within its plan.
So my question would be since this was done in conjunction with Ellesbury Vale
District Council and subsequently Buckinghamshire Council how did it ever
get through or how did nobody say you know you're in danger here of this plan
being worthless because it doesn't allocate housing?
Yeah, okay. Right.
Point of information, the former councillor just said
promises were made that no further development would be allowed in the village.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:34:56
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:34:59
That's one of the reasons they probably went that way. Okay, well we don't know.
Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:35:07
chair. And to be honest I'm really struggling
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:35:10
here because I think we are, we've got ourselves into a very difficult position
within this council.
We haven't got a, the Bucks Local plan hasn't been made.
Should have been done a year or two, a couple of years ago.
And we're sitting there on our hands with it.
And we've got ourselves stuck where we're open to speculative
development.
The report, again, makes it very clear
where the weight lies in terms of planning decisions.
And we're kind of really stuck between a rock and a hard place
in this committee.
I don't I think we're we're in a having to make very difficult decisions
But where are what I would like to say is is that?
the last decision
There are significant harms here that seem to be glossed over and and it's disappointing really that that
Highways aren't taking a much great more
Kind of assertive role really with with a very dangerous road and the only access point without any other
ability to get in and out of this site,
as well as the well -documented harms that
come from just the loss of this rural amenity that
makes the village what it is.
And I think that there is a case here
to say that there is the balance in this case really ought
to be tilted against our lack of a five -year land supply.
And that tilted balance really ought,
in this particular case for this particular village in this particular place part and there
might be other parts whether you could put these houses is actually just not right. Okay I'm just
going to go to Councillor Safran I'll come back to you. Absolutely valuable comments made but
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:36:54
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 4:36:56
we live in the reality which we didn't really intend to live in which is that as point made
if we had a development plan by 2025,
when we were supposed to have a development plan produced,
when we set up by Community Council,
maybe things would have been different.
There's reasons why that didn't happen.
Let's not pause and blame.
But I was very conscious to what happened in Buckingham,
where we turned down an application.
We were very robust with it, the conditions were made.
We turned it down.
It went to appeal.
We lost, as the officers said, the grounds of appeal.
In that development plan was a robust housing development.
I've done two neighbourhood plans in my period, and we were involved in two, and that had
substantial development in it.
That development that went to appeal was outside the neighbourhood plan.
It came forward outside the neighbourhood plan.
It still came through and got appealed.
And I just thought cheque my records and in 20 in the 8th of the temp 2024
I went to cabinet and I thought I'd find out is that the how much money we were spending on appeals because it's public money
In one instance we were spending 170
for
172 thousands on on one section of a planning appeals and then we were in
2023 the hourly rate was probably about 1500 per an hour and we were also spending 150
thousand six hundred and seventy pounds.
I'm trying to make a point chairman and one of the things we have to take into
consideration we also were spending on dispersal inquiries this council spent
three hundred and eighty four thousand two hundred and eighty seven pounds ninety
nine. That meant that committees like us had made decisions which have gone to
appeal and that's a huge amount of public money that we spent on planning
appeals, which is why I'm mindful to what the officers said about what happened in Bucky.
Believe you me, no one was happy with it.
Believe you me, we would have all liked a different decision.
I fear that what we're doing here is, without really strong terms, going to repeat that
tragedy again and increase that cost of the to the
Council tax payers across Buckinghamshire, which we have to take consideration. We are we should consider everything
We've got a decision today on the facts and the presentations exactly. I just thought the officers mentioned the appeal chair
I thought being as I took the time to ask those questions I'd put it in the public domain
Let me go back to Councillor Cairns. I'll go for Mr. Newsome.
Chair
Obviously we've heard some debate. It's a healthy debate
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:39:52
Cllr Raj Khan - 4:39:55
but I was picking it up once there were legal questions listen to a resident listen to the agent and
It's it's a no -doubter we can only reject this application
Whatever the cost is of course money is an issue for us, and we have to safeguard public birth money
I understand that but at the public purse money we cannot compromise the people of Bearton because
It's a public money. I am therefore we're not going to talk about costs
What we're gonna do if you're bringing it forward for a rejection. We need to know why that's all any
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:40:31
I think you need to put five of seven and I I I would still say that it's the immunity loss
infrastructure roads
Cllr Raj Khan - 4:40:41
in the area and losing our vital beauty of village life.
And I think the highway,
I don't think the highway report has been,
could have been more depth.
And I don't feel it was at that depth.
Therefore, I'm making a formal request
to reject this application.
And I'm hoping that there's someone out there to second me.
Okay.
Okay.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:41:08
One thing, it's one thing to say.
The proposal gives rights to a single.
Microphone.
The proposal gives rights to a single harm
of significant negative weight relating to landscape,
character, settlement form, countryside setting,
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 4:41:24
alongside a number of different harms
which each attract limited negative weights.
These harms must be weighed against the benefits
of the proposal in accordance with,
as our legal officer said, paragraph 11D2 of the MPPF.
So in my humble opinion, the reason we sit here
is these harms outweigh 11D2.
Okay.
And therefore I propose or second
the council to cancel the vote.
Thank you.
So if I could, members, having listened to the debate
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:41:55
that's just been undertaken, I have taken the liberty
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:41:59
of putting together some draught reasons for refusal
on the basis of what's been said but if I could ask you to have a listen and then if there's anything
I'm missing please do let me know and the precise wording will of course then be agreed with the
Chairman in due course. The first one is the proposed development by reason of its location
beyond the built -up area of the village of Bearton including the development beyond the boundary
within the Bearton neighbourhood plan is contrary to the spatial strategy of the adopted Fairdale
local plan and bit a neighbourhood plan and
comprises an encroachment into and lots of countryside that contributes significantly to the broader character and identity
Identity of this part of the village the developments location extending significantly southwards from the former development
development along Elsby Road and loss of one of the gaps or breaks in development along the a418 in Beerton is
Inca he said and the form of the settlement and results is in home. Sorry is in con Inc
Inc
Cohesive with the existing form of the settlement results in landscape harm affecting the settlements character and appearance the proposals therefore contrary to policies
s 1 s 2 s 3 and d 3 of the valve and policy p 1 of the bit and a bird plan
Secondly the proposed development by virtue its location beyond the built -up area of the village of bit and including
The development boundary within the bit and a bird plan
Extend the out into the countryside would result in the loss of the site's current open natural appearance resulting in a more urban character
As such, it would be seen as a clear extension of the built footprint of the village into
the countryside, resulting in significant adverse impacts to the landscape character
and visual immunity of the site and its surroundings, including from vantage points along the public
right of way, the footpath crossing the site.
The proposed development would therefore fail to conserve and enhance the natural environment
or recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside.
In conflict with policies D3, C4, N4, and B2 of the Valp and policies P1 and G2 of the
of the neighbourhood plan as well as the MPPF.
Thirdly, that the proposed development by reason
of its location beyond the built up area of the village
of Beaton, including the development boundary
within the neighbourhood plan, is contrary to the spatial
strategy of the local plan and neighbourhood plan,
and in the absence of sufficient infrastructure forms
and lack of proximity to services and facilities,
forms an unsustainable location to accommodate development
of the scale proposed.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies
S1, S2, S3, D3 and T1 of the Vellivar to be local plan.
And policy P1 of the bid to neighbourhood plan.
And then finally a reason for refusal around the lack
of a section 106 agreement
to secure the relevant financial contributions
and develop contributions.
Contrary to policies S5, H1, HSA, I2 and I3
of the Vellivar to be local plan and MPPF.
I am however aware Councillor Kahn
that you mentioned roads at the end there
and I have not mentioned roads.
So is there anything additional that I need to be adding?
Highways, but Chairman, this is exactly what I was trying to say, so well done.
Do you want to mention roads?
Cllr Raj Khan - 4:45:03
Yes, highways please as well.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:45:06
What do you want to say about them?
Yeah, what I would say Chairman is that there's always a concern for me with AOP
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:45:17
is that we just get highways don't object and we would really like more
information than that you know were this to go ahead then this would need to be
done that would really assist us. I think my concern on that front members is that
in the absence of any technical objection in relation to highways and
specifically the fact that the the point of access is being found to be acceptable
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:45:40
from a highway safety perspective the impact upon the local road network
in the first capacity has been found to be acceptable I would strongly urge
against trying to include a reason for refusal on that technical ground as I
simply don't think that would be able to stand up appeal I get that and thank you
before I was a member on this committee when I've sat as a speaker there's been
Cllr Chris Poll - 4:46:03
a Highways technician sat you know the top table so why is that not happen
we didn't see the need for today.
OK, thank you.
That's what it boils down to.
If it was predominantly highway issues,
then we would call one in.
So, Chairman, just before you go to the next step,
in terms of just to make it absolutely clear,
they are the draught reasons for refusal.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 4:46:25
I have, based on the topics and the matters
that members have debated and raised as concerns,
but just to say the precise wording
will be agreed with the Chairman with your agreement.
OK.
Okay, in that case, we have a proposal and a seconder before us.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:46:42
And we go for a vote, which is to go against the officer's recommendation for
the conditions that we just, sorry, for the reasons we've just been through.
All those in favour of that, please show.
10.
Those against?
to you Chairman.
Okay, thank you very much.
I know the hour is late, but we've got another application to deal with.
Can we just have two minutes quick adjournment so people can pop to the loo.

6 25/02163/APP - Land West of William Hill Drive And, South of Aylesbury Road, William Hill Drive, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5AZ

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:48:08
Okay, welcome back. We have a third application to here, which is 25 stroke 0 2 1 6 3. This
is a full application for 24 dwellings with access from William Hill Drive. Now I know
most of the other presenters are here. Can I just cheque Philip Hughes is here? Thank you.
Okay I'll pass you over now to the officer who's going to present this for us.
Thank you Chairman. So the application site refers to a parcel of land located to the south
of Aylesbury Road and the west of Burcote Lane in Bearton and that's circled in red on the slide.
Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer - 4:48:47
So the site is accessed from the east along William Hill Drive, which in turn is accessed off Burcote Lane.
The site is bounded by existing residential development along the northern and eastern boundaries with open fields to the west and south.
The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 24 dwellings with associated access, landscaping and suds.
and the application is being referred
to Central and North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
at the request of the Ward Councillors
and Bearton Parish Council
in line with the Council's constitution.
So as members will be aware from the written update,
the application is currently subject
to a period of re -consultation
following a change to the application description
and the submission of revised plans.
The change to the application description
reflects an increase in the dwelling numbers
proposed from 23 to 24.
The revised plans were submitted in order to respond to comments received from the case
officer and consortee comments.
The substantive changes relate to the inclusion of a loop road within the site rather than
turning heads and the location of the drainage pond has also been revised to accommodate
the loop road.
Finally, the layout changes do not materially alter the dwellings proposed at plots 1 to
8 and 9 to 15 and they are located along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site
respectively.
Therefore whilst it is acknowledged that the period of re -consultation does not end until the 3rd of June,
changes made based on the increase of one dwelling and layout revisions would not alter the impact of the development
on the amenities or the relationship to the existing properties to the north and east of the site.
So as a result of the re -consultation period, officers acknowledge that the comments received will necessitate some minor changes to the draught condition wording,
which is set out in section 8 of the officer report.
However, it should be noted that none of the consortees to date
have raised any objection in response to the increase
in the number of dwellings from 23 to 24,
or the layout changes as part of the re -consultation.
So just for context, as you will have seen in the earlier presentation,
there is a separate application for residential development
to the west of the site.
So as shown on the slide, the current application is shown in green,
and then the separate application is on...
apologies, the current application is shown in red,
and in green is the other application.
That's just provided for reference.
So in terms of site constraints,
so the site is bounded by residential development
to the north and east,
and then south and west are the open fields.
The site is partially within the Chiltern Beechwoods
Special Area Conservation Zone of Influence,
and that's shown by the blue line on the slide.
So the area to the east of that blue line
is what falls within the SAC Zone of Influence.
The site is also within an archeological notification area and the Bearton Conservation
Area is located to the north and that's shown in green.
There's a public right of way along the eastern boundary of the site.
That's shown by the purple line and then the site is also within a red Great Crested
Newt impact risk zone.
So the plan shown on the slide is the proposed site plan submitted in support of the application
and the development proposes a mix of detached,
semi -detached and short terraced dwellings
arranged in a perimeter block layout.
As set out in the officer's report,
the density of the scheme is considered to be acceptable
and the revised layout to accommodate 24 dwellings
provides active frontages overlooking public open space
and green spaces then been retained
along the southern edge of the site
to help mitigate the impact of the development
on the countryside beyond.
So within the 24 dwellings proposed,
there are four key house types
comprising a mix of three short terraces,
six pairs of semi -detached dwellings,
and three detached dwellings.
And so house type one, which is shown on the slide,
is one of the detached dwellings proposed.
And then these are the plans and elevations
for house type two, which is another detached dwelling.
And then these are the plans and elevations
for house type three.
These are the semi -detached dwellings,
and the green line on the elevation plan
just demonstrates the dividing line between the two dwellings. On this slide
you've got the elevations for house type 4. These are the short terraces
comprising three dwellings. Again green line to demonstrate where the dividing
line is. And then these are the floor plans for house type 4 again showing you
where the three dwellings sit. So there's an existing public right -of -way which is
located along the eastern boundary of the site.
This is actually going to be diverted
along a two metre wide footway through the site.
And that's shown by the green dashed line.
And if that's not overly visible,
it's going to run through the site here
and up and then reconnect
into the existing right of way at the top.
So as set out in the officer's report,
this would provide an improvement
to the existing public right of way network
for the general public and for the new residents
through the provision of a hard surfaced route
through the site.
the highways and the strategic access officers raise no objection to the alignment.
So on this slide is a CGI image of what the site would look like in the context of Bearton,
and the access to the site is on the right -hand side of the image here.
So this CGI image shows you what the entrance point to the site would look like,
so that's in the centre of the image, and plots 1 and 2 are just visible on the right.
So this is your access and plots one and two are just visible here.
And then the final CGI image provides a view from the southwest corner of the site across
the Suds basin, which is in the foreground.
So it's some photos of the site.
And so these provide the view from the existing access from William Hill Drive on the left
and the view towards the proposed access point into the development on the right.
and that's shown by the red arrow on the screen.
And then the image on the left provides a close view
of the proposed access point.
And the one on the right looks back down William Hill Drive.
So these images just provide a view
across the application site
to the wall to the southern boundary.
And then the photo on the right provides the view
from inside the application site,
looking back towards the proposed access point
and the existing car park.
And then the photo on the right looks towards
the southern boundary again.
And these images demonstrate the view
towards the existing houses,
which are along the northern boundary of the site.
And then these provide a view from the application site
towards the existing right of way
and the residential dwellings beyond
on the eastern boundary.
The image on the left shows you the public right of way and the view towards the existing
dwellings on the northern boundary and the image on the right provides the view along
the right of way which is along the eastern boundary.
Then you've got the image on the left shows the existing gate on the right of way which
is adjacent to the proposed access point for the development, which you can just see on
the left -hand side of the image here.
And the photo on the right shows the view across the application site from the proposed
access point.
So to conclude, whilst the proposal gives rise to some policy conflicts which tracked
limited rates against the development, the cumulative benefits, particularly the additional
affordable housing provision in excess of policy compliance and the considerable housing
delivery in the context of a significant supply shortfall, are such that on balance the adverse
impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the
policies of the framework taken as a whole. As such, the application is recommended for approval
subject to the expiry of the statutory publication and consultation period which is currently being
undertaken for the amended plans and documents, satisfactory completion of a section 106 agreement
seeking to secure various planning obligations with any amendment and or additional obligations
as considered appropriate and including financial contributions towards the Chiltern Beechwood's
and subject to conditions as proposed with any amendments or additional conditions as considered appropriate.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Can I call Julie Ward, please?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:57:28
Thank you, Councillor.
Members, again we are speaking about essentially the same site as we just
spoke about last time. I've previously described to you how this site has
consistently failed to gain planning permission for similar applications
under similar circumstances including the lack of five -year housing land
and nothing tangible has changed. I have described how officers have previously
Public Speakers - 4:58:33
recommended approval for development on this site as they do today and how
members have voted against that recommendation and how members
assessments and views of the site have been upheld by an inspector who has
ruled with them and dismissed appeals. We must be consistent. We must be consistent
historically and even as historically as 10 minutes ago. Again as the inspector
pointed out the development plan here is not absent nor is it silent however we
now have an adopted neighbourhood plan and that is also neither absent nor
silent. This site sits outside of the current development plan, the current
neighbourhood plan and crucially the emerging local plan. This site conflicts
with all three. The reason for refusal stating that the proposal would cause
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area holds as firm
today as at the time of the last appeal. The appellant then contested that the
council could not demonstrate a five -year house supply of housing land
and that did not swing it then, and it should not swing it now.
I remain concerned about the cumulative effects of development
and would again ask you to still consider this in conjunction with the application that you just refused,
as that may well come back at appeal.
So again, we know that there is a realistic possibility that the site next door will still continue to come forward,
So we must still take that into consideration and assess it.
I believe that the highway's concerns remain applicable,
and actually probably more so here,
because this comes out onto Burkett Lane.
What the picture doesn't adequately illustrate to you
is that the exit is through a car park.
And as you can see to the immediate right
of the development, that is an old people's community
where a warden lives. When you do eventually reach Birkett Lane, it is constantly congested
with parked cars. There is a coffee shop there now that has around parking for about ten
cars and that generally gets taken up by staff. On the same site there is a wellness centre.
Birkett Lane is constantly full of parked cars. There is a new football club that has
opened there it is full of parked cars and the police have got significant
concerns about the parking on Birkett Lane I have met thank you thank you your
time any points of clarification
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:01:28
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
You just mentioned about cars parking down Burcaw Lane and you mentioned a football club.
Can you just clarify to others that there's a sports facility and community hall just
across the way from the exit?
There's actually two on Burcaw Lane.
There's the they both fall within the parish of Bearton.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:02:04
There is the Bearton Recreation Ground,
Public Speakers - 5:02:07
which includes a children's play area and a football ground.
And there is the new one, the large one, which is also
virtually next door on Burkett Lane, which is
in the ownership of Kingsbrook Parish Council, but has recently been leased
to a football club who hold lots of events.
and the parking at weekends will be the entire length of the lane. The police
have got significant concerns. There's a lot of school traffic parks there
because they use the footpath Muddy Lane to to access Bearden School. I have met
with Thames Valley Police on that site on more than one occasion and they have
got concerns which they will be raising formally. I discussed that literally this
morning with the chairman, sorry, not chairman, with one of the, with the
officer for our community board because we are at our wits end as to how we
mitigate traffic on the lane which leads off of the A418 where we've got a
calming feature right at the top of the junction by way of the B coloured tarmac.
You know there's traffic calming feature after traffic calming feature after
traffic calming feature and just how this comes out through through a car
park which serves an old people's residents I cannot fathom it. One last
And you mentioned earlier on, and you've done it again in this one, you said about
Burcote Lane is traffic heavy, and you mentioned earlier on it's a rat run.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:03:56
Can you explain, and you said that comes from Kingsbrook, which is the new area of loads
of houses, but has it always been a rat run from the A41, Kingsbrook and then out?
It's always been a route that people that lived in the village of Biton would use to get down to the A41, why wouldn't they?
Public Speakers - 5:04:27
It was a country lane through a village with no other development there.
Since that time there's two and a half thousand houses come forward at Kingsbrook.
There's been the associated leisure facilities,
such as the football club and things like that
have come forward.
It's a very different road now to the one that it was then.
Don't believe I described it as a wrap run,
but it does attract a lot of school traffic.
Thank you.
Chancellor Hussain.
Two questions.
One, you outlined the fact that this site
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 5:05:07
has had previous refusals and that they have gone to appeal and the inspector has dismissed
them. Can you elaborate on that a bit? And secondly, also the fact that again this is
outside the area as designated in the village plan.
Yes, again it sits outside the boundary of the neighbourhood plan and it's outside of
local plan and the inspector concluded that the proposal would cause
Public Speakers - 5:05:38
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. That was in the
appeal decision that was made site visit 27th of September 2016 and as you can as
you've seen from the photographs on the previous application nothing in that
Thank you.
Councillor Kivin.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:06:10
Councillor Hussain's asked my question.
I was just going to ask about what the inspectors reasons
were for using that site in the past.
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, thank you, chairman.
A couple of little questions, short questions.
The car park that you mentioned
at the end of William Hill Drive,
What's it used for?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:06:35
And while you're thinking about that, the access that the officer told us that there's going
to be an improved surface linking that footpath there up to the 418, would you consider
or would residents consider Tarmac being a better solution than a field footpath?
And the second question is this was identified in the call for sites
and was rejected as not suitable.
Do you know why it was not accepted under the call for sites as a suitable site for development?
Thank you, Councillor Smith.
The car park, the use of the car park, it is for, as you see on the right hand side there,
it services the community of old people that live in the bungalows.
Public Speakers - 5:07:23
There's often quite a lot of elderly visitors that would park there, pick them up for their day trips or go and visit, that sort of thing.
But that's what it is. It's a car park that serves the elderly community that live in the William Hill Drive retirement community as such.
No, I don't think a tarmac footpath is any substitution whatsoever for open countryside.
And I think the question was put at the last application when people discussed
that it's well used by walkers.
It's well used by walkers because it's open countryside.
Nobody wants to walk through the middle of a housing estate.
Oh and the last one it was yes it was found as unsuitable for the call for sites for all
the reasons that I have touched on and I would say for all of the reasons that
you turned down the previous application. Okay Councillor Cornell. Thank you I think
Councillor Smith has already asked part of my question but you say that the car park
is used by the old people's home. I was down there the other day having a look at the
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 5:08:44
and there was one car in the car park and the old people's,
the actual old people's area,
there was only a few cars there as well.
So it doesn't look like that's a very used car park.
I suppose that would depend on what day
and what time you visited at.
It's like, it's like anywhere, like a school, for example,
you could go past a school at a certain time
Public Speakers - 5:09:07
and say that there's not a lot of cars park
outside of school and you could go down,
as we all know, passed a school at another time and think that it's
incredibly dangerous. I think it is. It depends what time and day you go.
If you have places for old people, shall we have parking for them, not just down the public car park?
I'm sorry, Councillor Cornell, could you say that again?
If you've got old people who've got parking and things, which there's quite a lot of parking with their bungalows,
you're not expecting them to park in public car parks, are you?
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 5:09:40
They're free to park wherever they like. That car park is not a public car park. That car
park is for that retirement community and its visitors.
Public Speakers - 5:09:52
I just want to...when I drove there, there was nothing that said that it was belonging
to them.
I
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 5:10:06
Can't comment on the signage, but it's it's not it's not a public car park. I know it's not a public car park because
We asked to if we could use it for a short period of time when we did some
charity runs
Public Speakers - 5:10:20
5k 10k runs around the village and of course we have to ask the the
Operators of the retirement community if we may use their car park
Good. Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Ward, thank you for your time.
Can I call Councillor Cotten then please?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:10:43
I'm going to try not to repeat myself or repeat Julie too much so it might be a bit
short.
Right, Land of William Hill Drive, again, outside the neighbourhood plan, development areas.
Beattie and Parrish Council already submitted robust planning application, planning objections to the application.
Public Speakers - 5:11:15
There were also 154 objections from members of the public.
There have been three previous applications for this site since June 97, all refused.
Nothing has changed here over the years to warrant approval of the current application.
and I went on to say about the extra planning applications
in the village.
Regarding traffic, any cars coming out of there
are either gonna go left up onto the main 418
and find the complications we've already discussed
or turn right down Burkhardt Lane to Bellingham Way,
which is also getting very busy now.
As Julie did point out, there is, we have in the area
bit recreation ground with a playground and a preschool there during the week.
And then if you go further on down, you've got the new sports field, which was done for Kingsbrook,
which has numerous football teams in there. And again,
I'm getting tired of traffic parking on Bercot Lane. So whichever way you go is problems.
There's no bus service calling on Burcaw Lane.
The cycleway in the village stops at the church.
Between there and Burcaw Lane, the footways are very narrow
and can only be used singly for pedestrians in most places,
as already pointed out.
Again, the GP surgeries are full, the schools, all that,
we've already gone through.
Regarding that car park, it is used as an overspill
and it belongs to Anchor Homes.
and I have seen it more full than the Councillor up there described at weekends
and we do apply when we have something big on in the village if we can use it
it's not public. Regarding the amendments again received after five o 'clock last
Wednesday and we haven't had a parish council since so we can't we haven't had
Okay, any points of clarification?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:13:25
No.
I think it covers a lot of the ground, previously.
Councillor Cotten, thank you for your time.
Great.
Yes, you're up next.
It's me again, yeah, sorry.
First of all, I would like to say, AI believe nothing.
It looks nothing like that.
Public Speakers - 5:13:56
Going on to the application, your office's report accepts that this proposal
conflicts with both the local plan and the Bearden
neighbourhood plan.
The application is formally recognised by officers
as a departure from the development plan.
Furthermore, the land is identified
as unsuitable for development in the emerging local plan.
The committee is being asked to set aside a recently adopted
neighbourhood plan for just 20.
It is 24 houses, which will have no material effect
on the housing supply shortfall.
The site has a clear planning history.
A proposal for 25 homes was dismissed at appeal.
And a later proposal for up to 23 homes was also refused.
The 2016 refusal said that Vellum
would be an obtrusion into the open countryside,
that it would harm the rural character and appearance of the site, that it would
fail to preserve the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation
area and would be reliant on on the car because Bearden has limited facilities.
These concerns have not disappeared in fact they've intensified. Residents
highlighted that local GP surgeries are already over subscribed, roads are
Constrained footpaths and narrow traffic calming measures are struggling with existing volumes and the village school is full
Children are regularly
transported to schools outside the village at the council's expense
residents objections explain the very real conditions on Burkett Lane and
William Hill Drive narrow bends difficult junctions school traffic pressure from Kings Brook expansion and
and the impact on elderly residents
living immediately beside the proposed access route.
The officer's report describes this
as a finely balanced decision.
In finely balanced cases,
members are entitled to give substantial weight
to the key points highlighted.
The development plan, the neighbourhood plan,
previous refusal reasons, countryside protection,
infrastructure pressures, and traffic impacts.
members should also take account of the 3 ,000 home development north of Bearden
put forward in the emerging plan. In order to proceed, the car park that
everybody talks about, which is in essence part of the road, the road leads
to Burkard Lane. Opposite the entrance of that lane is the recreation
entry where there's a children's playground and the road is fully stacked
with cars. Thank you, thank you very much. Any points of clarification?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:17:08
I might have to save it for technical but the speaker mentioned the design of the
I can ask the officers but do you know that they're significantly different to
different types of houses?
Cllr Chris Poll - 5:17:23
Yes, I saw that.
All it will do is generate even more cars and more cars will cause more traffic and
more congestion and more problems with the highway access,
Public Speakers - 5:17:37
Burkett Lane, the junction onto the 418, the traffic calming through Bearden, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah, if forgive me, I'm well familiar with
I thought that you'd mentioned about the design of the houses or is it that there is not a
single car?
Cllr Chris Poll - 5:17:54
Well, there is two casually going around an empty plot.
So is that the point you were making?
No, I'm sorry, I don't follow you.
I don't recall that point.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:18:17
I was basically saying that you shouldn't believe a picture that was generated by AI.
Okay thank you. Thank you sir for your time. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 5:18:26
Right, can I call Philip Hughes, the agent, please?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:18:37
I think the trick is to arrange your papers before you sit down,
isn't it?
Time doesn't start.
You, Mr. Yutof, again, three minutes, sorry, for your presentation.
Thank you, Chairman.
I can read a room, so I'm just going to deal with the differences between our scheme and
the previous scheme.
Public Speakers - 5:19:13
In terms of character and visual amenity, the Obsidian scheme was assessed as having
significant harm, carries significant weight.
This scheme has limited localised harm and carries limited weight.
Heritage, there was harm in the Obsidian scheme.
There's no harm to heritage assets in this scheme.
And that's a conclusion raised
by the previous inspector on this site.
There's no loss of any gap along the A418 with this scheme.
There's no loss of best and most versatile land.
This scheme fully accords with the design SPD
and affordable housing is provided at a ratio that exceeds your plan
requirements and indeed the tenure link in the scheme is in full accordance with
your requirements. This is a detailed scheme with all details fully resolved
and delivery, this is a full application, will be deliverable in five years and
thus will directly address your worsening
housing land supply position.
The access uses an existing access.
The car park is little used.
The assessment of the access onto adopted highways
by the highway authority on our own highway advisors
has concluded that it's safe
and would meet all full requirements.
The scale of this development is such that it is half the number on the Obsidian scheme.
And as you can see from the CGI, not AI generated images, the CGI images on the screen,
the houses have a one and a half storey scale compared to the two storey scale of the Obsidian site.
In terms of high quality placemaking, your urban design advisors concluded that the Obsidian
scheme would not provide high quality placemaking.
Their conclusion on this scheme is that it would be high quality placemaking.
There have been significant changes since the 2016 appeal decision.
that was for an outline application
that proposed houses backing onto
the southern boundary of this site.
This scheme provides perimeter blocks
and is supported by your urban design colleagues
and the SPD.
The small scale development that is proposed
is adjacent to the boundaries
and does not materially harm the character of Beerton.
Therefore, it complies with vault policy D3.
Bearden is a medium settlement and a sustainable location for new development.
The only harm that arises...
Can I just clarify, looking at the... Have all the houses got garages?
Sorry I didn't catch that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:22:25
Have all the houses got garages?
No.
Oh, okay, that's going to help me.
Thank you Chairman, could we just go back to the previous picture that the agent referred
Cllr Frank Mahon - 5:22:48
to. Sorry for my ignorance here, but you said it was an AI, you said it was CGI. What is
CGI?
No, it isn't the same thing. It's a computer generated image based on the full details
of the scheme that's rendered by the architects
to be a realistic representation of what's proposed.
Public Speakers - 5:23:08
AI is a completely artificial generated image
that has no basis in the designers of the scheme.
It's generated by the computer itself.
Can I just try and assume?
Thank you, Chair.
I think that point is probably very debatable.
Perhaps you should get back
to some of the more substantive stuff.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:23:30
I think that you vaguely,
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 5:23:35
or maybe inadvertently suggested that
unlike the previous application,
this application doesn't quite affect,
be it in the characteristic way
in which the previous application does,
and I'm not quite sure that's true.
I think that's very, very misleading
because from the previous application site,
from one of the walkways,
You can actually look over to this site
and see people walking their dogs.
You can see wildlife running through it.
In the summer, it's one of the most beautiful things
to look at if you live in or around Bearden
or you're just visiting or passing by.
And so this, much like the previous application,
is equally as damaging to the characteristic of this village.
So I would be, I think it's, if you'd
to clarify specifically why it isn't, given that actually this one has got characteristically
more personality than the previous one, because this one's got a pond, it's got a lot more
greenery, and it's got a lot more naturally enhancing things for residents to enjoy.
So if you want to clarify why this is somehow less damaging than the previous one, please feel free.
Well, I absolutely would. I totally and utterly disagree with you, but that's the nature of
of opinions. This is a scheme that's been landscape led. It's designed
Public Speakers - 5:25:03
specifically in accordance with the inputs of your own urban design officer.
It's got perimeter blocks on it that face outwards rather than having the
rear garden boundaries that perpetuate the poor design of properties backing
onto the site at the moment.
And what you see from the southern footpath
is the back of those properties.
This field forms part of the foreground.
But what you pick up in those views
is the back of those properties.
What you will pick up in, should this application be approved,
would be the sense of place that comes with well -designed
development that's outward facing and of good quality.
And what you couldn't judge in terms of the previous scheme was
the scale of development, the design of the development,
because it was an outline application.
But what was clear was that all those houses will perpetuate
the poor design of the existing edge of settlement by merely
bringing those rear garden boundaries closer
to the footpath.
Okay, yeah.
So what you're essentially alluding to is that it destroys the character of the village in a slightly more appealing way than the previous application did.
No, absolutely not. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I just said. False.
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 5:26:24
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Gough.
Public Speakers - 5:26:36
Well again, it's like deja vu talk about, but it is a slightly different part of the field, I concur with you on that one.
If you could go back a few of the photos, please
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:26:41
When you shoot that's it. That's it. Go back a little bit more back a little bit more
Well, so again when we're talking about the the land and that round there
This is part of it and we quite concerned about flooding
etc
there
That picture the one to the right
If you just obliged me just it shows you how poor the piece of land is
for wetland. Go forward, forward, you can't really see there, forward, forward.
I think we've gone past the one. There was the walkway down it you know there it was
there it just shows how poor that is. Wetland round there. There's a concern
Chair about flooding. Would you agree or not agree? I absolutely disagree. This is
There's no flooding come forward on the site.
There's a full surface water strategy to deal with the site
and to ensure that the outcome
Public Speakers - 5:27:44
from the site meets the existing greenfield runoff rates
from the existing field.
There's no issue of flooding associated with this site.
And that's clear if you look at your representations
from the technical consultees, both in terms of the lead
local flood authority and the environment agency.
There's no objections on flooding to the site.
And just in terms of the footpath
that runs up the eastern boundary,
that is rerouted into the site.
But one of the benefits of doing that,
and significant benefits of doing that,
is it enhances the ecological value of that eastern corridor,
which the footpath, the dogs, et cetera, erode the value of that as an ecological resource
and your own policies require a protection zone along there where members of the public
are not routinely walking and taking their dogs.
Can I just come back on one point?
When we look at the impact of, you know, we discussed earlier about the impact of that area,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:28:58
about what it's worth to the village, unurbanizing it.
But so are you saying as well,
the traffic that would possibly come
if we approve your application
would have no impact on Burcaw Lane itself?
All traffic has some impact.
I'm not gonna say it has no impact,
but it doesn't lead to any harm.
And that's clear from the transport analysis
Public Speakers - 5:29:24
that we've undertaken to underpin this application
and the responses of the highway authority.
And you'll be aware of the test in the MPPF in terms
of highway harm, and this is not a site
that would meet those MPPF tests in terms of highway safety harm
and demonstrable cumulative adverse effects
on the highway network.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Can I say?
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 5:30:05
Can you tell me what difference there is between this application and the application in 2016 that was for 23 houses, so one less, and that was refused?
Yes absolutely as I said earlier that was an outline application that included
a row of houses aligning their back gardens along the southern boundary so
Public Speakers - 5:30:23
in effect it perpetuated the existing pattern along the northern boundary of
the site bringing that poor design and I don't say poor design in any pejorative
as I say, in terms of your own design guide,
which explicitly identifies that as poor design,
it perpetuated that,
bringing itself towards the southern boundary.
This is a well -designed, good quality scheme
that follows the advice of your urban design officers
and your own adopted design guidance
in terms of laying out a scheme
and addressing the external boundaries of the site.
It doesn't extend south of the existing development
to the east.
So we have King's Meadow.
And this scheme steps in line with King's Meadow
and steps back from King's Meadow.
You have houses on the southern side of King William Drive.
Sorry, William Hill Drive, not King William Drive.
that protrude further south than any part of this development.
So it fully contextualises and addresses its context.
And do you think it answers the question about sustainability?
Yes. I mean, Beerton is identified in the vault
as a sustainable location for development.
It has, it's a medium village with moderate sustainability.
it can accommodate some development and we would say,
I think really importantly I have to say,
this application has to be dealt with on its own merits.
These 24 houses can be absorbed and I fully believe
that this is a sustainable form of development
and in a sustainable location with access to a number
forms of transport as alternatives to the motorcar. Okay okay thank you very
much. There's no further questions for you. Thank you.
Right Councillors have you got any technical questions?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:32:44
Thank you, Chair. I'm listening carefully and my understanding of things is that applications should be considered in there separately.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 5:33:13
There's a lot of discussion in the, from the app, from both people referring back to the application.
And it's unfortunate that the two applications come forward on the same day and comments
about being in a room and such like.
We need to sort of explain through the chair that the necessity that we demonstrate when
we're determining these applications, that we are determining them separately, because
there's an awful lot of alluding between one application and the other application.
with very different applications, one being an outline application, one being a detailed application,
which is a vast difference. I think we'd seek some help and guidance to explain that when we determine them.
Because we can't, we must at all times be seen to be examining this on its own.
I'm danger that we're going to be slipping into where we were with the last application.
they are very different in planning law and and they are very different there so
I seek some help with that to make sure that we find keep you out of it yeah you
know I mean keep us from falling into traps okay council Paul yeah just very
briefly chairman just from the drawing up there I'm struggling to understand
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:34:37
Cllr Chris Poll - 5:34:41
how parking requirements are met.
It rather looks like a shared driveway
and then two parking spaces, one for each property.
So a bit of a conflict there
because I just assumed the site is constrained
to get that many dwellings on there.
So does it meet parking standards?
And also the one and a half storey
and then a two storey chimney seems very odd to me.
Is that the final design? I know it's not a planning consideration, but I thought I'd ask it's completely like unlike anything else
That I can record see if we find out the area
One
The image remember with that greenery that would be mature greenery. I don't think they're bringing in mature trees
So that we were talking about probably ten years down the line that image probably may come true
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 5:35:35
unless the officer disagree with me.
So that is a bit of a red herring.
The other point being, Councillor Colle's, on parking.
As he says, can the officers please confirm
that the three bedroom and two bedroom houses,
that the number of parking spaces is adequate?
Number three, has a parking, or no, not parking,
a traffic survey or traffic model
being done in any shape or form because you're talking,
I mean, without sounding like a broken record,
having been on this committee for 20 -odd years,
the one thing we always get wrong,
we always assume that every house will have one car.
We all know that majority of houses will have two cars,
minimum, until they grow teenagers
and then there'll be three.
So you'll be parking along that loop road.
So is that being taken into account?
Bearing in mind that where this location is,
there's no regular busses.
The nearest facilities that we discussed
with the previous application are miles and miles away.
Even the amenity spaces, which is a sports field
that I must clear an interest with.
I take my grandchildren there all the time.
because there's nobody there usually,
for the playground, which is down Bertholt Lane,
that that's gonna take time.
So can we have those three?
And the last one is flood mitigation.
Is there any flood mitigation issues here at all?
Yeah, we covered that.
I think they covered it because it's flood zone one.
Yeah, but Council Gaughan.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:37:30
Chairman, Councillor Hussain stole my question.
It was about public transport.
Good man.
Yeah.
So it was about busses.
That was their service.
OK, thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:37:40
So just to cover off the question about on -plot parking,
so paragraph 580 of the report sets out
that the proposed level of on -plot car parking
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:37:51
for the dwellings complies with the adopted parking standard
set out in the VELP.
Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer - 5:37:55
And that paragraph concludes by saying that the highways
officer raises no objection to the level of parking
proposed and is satisfied that sufficient provision is made to meet the
demand and avoid over school parking onto the surrounding streets. With
regards to traffic modelling and paragraph 5 .66 of the office of report
sets up out about the level of traffic generation that's anticipated from the
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 5:38:23
development so insofar as the traffic movements are anticipated being capable
are being accommodated within the local highway network the highest team have
raised no objection to that. I note the point about trees and it's one of those
where the CGI's we've touched upon what they are in terms of renderings of the
proposal as shown on the site plan and elevations. The trees are largely being
retained in a bit like mature trees along the western and eastern boundaries
so I think in terms of being a fair representation I certainly wouldn't be
challenging the inclusion of those.
With regards to sustainable travel,
much like the previous application,
the highways team have raised no objection
with regards to the sustainability of the site.
I think it should be noted that this is a much smaller scale
in development than the previous application,
being for 25 homes rather than, sorry,
24 homes rather than 47 homes.
As part of the mitigation package identified
as part of the scheme. The passenger transport team has requested financial
contributions towards public transport as part of the mitigation package. Again
that would be secured by legal agreement in the event of approval.
I missed anything apologies members. Flooding, flooding. Paragraph 5 .168
of the report onwards talks about the impact with regards to drainage and
flood risk as specified by the agent the site is within flood zone one the lead
local flood Authority have reviewed and the drainage strategy and as can be seen
on the screen there is a large drainage pond proposed in the southwest corner of
the site in order to adequately mitigate the increase in surface water as a
concerns with regards to drainage and flood risk. Please will you just repeat
your question about design. Yeah I was just questioning the design it's unlike
anything else that I've seen around the area is that an accurate rendering of
Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer - 5:40:35
Cllr Chris Poll - 5:40:39
the design that one and a half storey house with a two -storey chimney? Yes so
the renderings are accurate of the elevations proposed and there is
there is a range of building designs within Bearton. I think as you can
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 5:40:53
probably see in the very northern part of that CGI image some of the dwellings
and so please make a West further left so there are some taller chimneys two
properties in the locality and those design cues have been taken as part of
the design of the scheme and indeed the landscape and urban design team have
reviewed the proposed elevations and believe that they fit in satisfactorily
with sort of the character of properties and the locality so as officers we've
raised no concern with regards to the design. Local members may know more than
me but I can only think of one building like that and it's in K &LA.
Okay.
Councillor Stryfry. Yeah just to speak in clarity, I mean nothing was said about the
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:41:39
for housing before the agents.
So about the affordable housing,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 5:41:43
it's 29 % of the total, which is,
which is 4 % over the value of our speech plan,
which was, I didn't think of the right percentage anyway,
but should be more, I mean, it states in it,
and we have no concept of,
so it'll be a sort of tributive buyable,
but will there be social housing in that mix?
Because it's important to understand
whether there's going to be the tenure -blind, built, cheaper
construction, or whether they're going to be actually
all social housing, which would increase the,
would make a lot of difference to the community.
I bet there's people in that community
who'd love to stay there.
There's seven properties out in 24.
Yeah so of the seven properties, apologies bear with me, so five of them are going to
be social rented units and two will be shared ownership units.
That's quite a good mix really because you know there might be people in the village
Faye Hudson - Senior Planning Officer - 5:42:50
who like to stay there.
Probably would.
All right, no further technical questions.
Let's go to open debate.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:43:05
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chairman.
And I've listened very carefully to the discussion
and read the proposals very carefully.
And it feels to me that unlike the previous application,
it's very difficult to see how the harm caused
by this development could significantly
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:43:32
or could outweigh the benefits in terms of the way
that this report has been put together for us.
And the way that it connects to the rest of Bearton,
the way that it looks, and I don't really agree
with the design cues.
It feels to me as if the design cues are being plucked quite
nicely from the rather distinctive buildings
along the Aylesbury Road.
But that aside, the rural setting
and the landscaping of this particular bit of Bearden
doesn't really seem to be affected.
The lovely footpath that people have
to walk along with their dogs and walk along by themselves
isn't really affected by this development.
It may even be enhanced, really.
So from my perspective,
although it would be very nice to object to infilling,
this sort of infilling development,
I just can't see how this particular development
can score in the same way that the last development does
in terms of the harm to the rural setting of Bearton.
And it certainly connects in a far better way
to the rest of the community than the last development.
It doesn't go onto the main roads,
it's got a footpath going onto the main roads.
And yeah, so...
Yeah, I'm, you know, I listened carefully to the...
our application recognised the issues,
but this is a different application, we have to consider it is.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:45:13
And it's absolutely a different application,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 5:45:15
because it's a full application, not an outline application.
I made the point earlier about not linking.
The harm can be demonstrated in this application
and we can see what it is, we can see what it's gonna do,
we can see how it's gonna demonstrate what it does
and the affordability in it is a lot higher.
I expect that everybody's gonna see far more applications
in time coming forward
And I would be happy to support this application because it's
as much in the size it is and propose
that we should agree alongside the officer's recommendations
because we have to be in isolation.
Simple this.
We can see what it is.
We can see what it does.
It says what it does on the tin.
And it's got nothing to do with the hundreds of hours
built before all the ones coming after all the road all the school and the
house it has to be considered in its context of what it is all those other
things are present issues which are there already this application isn't
adding to those issues and I think the officers report to us I propose we agree
before you call your recommendation.
Is that seconded?
Okay, thank you.
Answer?
given.
I don't know if it's because I'm old, but I'm afraid healthcare is something that is close to my heart.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:46:54
And this is just from 5 .1 here in the pack.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 5:46:57
And it says that the ICB confirms oat field surgery,
the closest practise to the site is already operating at capacity
and is unable to accommodate further patients.
The wider central maple PCN, including mandible practise,
is also assessed to be over capacity.
As such, the ICB concludes there is insufficient existing
capacity within the local primary care estate
to serve the additional population arising
from the proposal.
So they're saying that the ICB advised that on -site provision
that primary health care would not be viable for development
of this scale, and therefore request an off -site mitigation
in the form of a financial contribution,
secured through section 106.
Contribution sought is 21 ,711 pounds,
which would be able to support delivery of 3 .4 square metres
of additional clinical floor space at mandatory practise.
I can't really see how that's going to help the situation.
The problem is we ask them what they want and that's what they come back with.
They are a consulting team which we have to deal with and they're supposedly the experts
in the area.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:48:07
I mean ICB are operating better than the old CCGs and so we're getting a bit more.
Hang on, I've just got Councillor Hussain next.
Follow up on that, I was going to start with that point, but as my colleague has started
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 5:48:30
on that, I fully understand the sharp fence that our officers have to sit on, and I fully
understand that this is not within their control, and I have 100 % sympathy with them.
But to say 21 ,000 pounds is a decent contribution
for an additional, what, 90 people probably?
But we've argued with a, we've argued with a man
as you know.
I'm arguing the point.
That, you know, my sympathies with the officers.
But 21 ,000 pounds is not even a quarter
of a GP's chequered salary.
And that's where this committee comes in
because we're supposed to give real world experience
to the stuff, the technical stuff that our officers
do all their hard work on.
One, so I disagree fundamentally with Councillor Smith
because I think all the harm that was in the previous
application stands here, which is outside both plans,
which is the local plan and the neighbourhood plan,
which is still extant.
The harm and the need for schooling and infrastructure,
dentistry and health, as Councillor Gibbons stated,
is not adequately covered and God knows where they're going
to go to get this doctor, to see a doctor or see a dentist
or go to school even.
The fact that the traffic is not mitigated
in any way, shape or form.
So they say the model shows there will be 13 movements
in the morning, and I think it's 13, 1 -3 movements
from 24 properties.
I'm sorry, come down my street,
which is an urban street in the middle of town,
and I'll tell you there's more than 24 movements
in that street.
So real world, I think all the harm that was stated
for the previous application, states for this application,
my Councillor's point about destroying the green lung
field, whatever you want to call it, also stands and has been has demonstrated by the
photographs the officers have shown, there are pathways through that field that villagers
use. So I will be voting against it. Again, I am the last person because my ward is in
the town, I get so many emails about people who need housing, I'm the last person to be
and then be especially with seven social housing,
or affordable housing, which I never agree with.
It's gotta be social housing as far as I'm concerned.
But I will have to vote against this
for the harm that it will cause this village.
Councillor Carl?
Thank you, Chair.
I'm a little bit perplexed here.
I think it's a little bit unfair too.
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 5:51:27
It has the grand comparison to our previous application.
Cllr Raj Khan - 5:51:31
We are talking about putting pressures on our infrastructures.
My problem is not with the application, it's with the infrastructure that we have in Bearden.
As I said previously, I've been a member there for eight years.
And I see, I mean my colleagues have already raised it, you know, dentistry schools.
I mean at the moment they've got no school position at what's that new area called?
It's part of the Kingsborough.
And we are not looking at the reality of what's happening.
We're just looking at the paper of this application.
I live in this town.
I work in this town.
And I'm involved with businesses.
And I can say that this is going to put a lot of pressure.
We are now transporting children at taxpayers' money
because we can't give them a school 1 .2 miles
or 1 mile distance from the area.
We are not making the right decision.
I think this is no different in any way
of the previous application.
I think it would be wrong of us to give one and not the other
because the principle is the same.
It's the infrastructure, amenities,
and everything that we said in our previous application.
Therefore, I'll be opposing this application.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
And I'm a little bit disappointed with what we've heard
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:53:00
from cancer study and cancer Smith,
because I thought we were going in the right direction.
The previous two applications,
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 5:53:06
we talked about the integrity of rural villages,
things that separate a village with its green space
from the rest of them.
And what Council Gippin and what our other colleagues
have said about with regards to healthcare, education,
infrastructure is all absolutely correct.
But if we're not careful with what goes on
in rooms like this, in situations like this,
we will turn villages like Bearton into a town.
And that really does risk threatening something,
because when areas like Bearton,
and areas similar to it, are on its knees
in terms of infrastructure, in terms of education,
and in terms of healthcare,
decisions like what the councillors opposite are proposing,
will put them on, will basically be stepping on their throat.
And it's really not fair,
and I think we should be really careful
with what we're doing when we come to these decisions,
because we're not just voting on where the houses go.
We're voting on what the people in the classrooms
are having to deal with.
We're voting on what administrations are going to do.
We're voting on what is going on in the health service.
This is also what we're voting on here.
And we have to be really, really careful
with what the decisions we make here.
I'm very concerned about the entrance being
to a car park for the elderly people,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:54:21
because I think it's a known fact that the closer you are to home,
you still don't pay attention quite so much because you're almost back home
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 5:54:30
or you're just setting off as well.
And old people, you know, that might not have been a very good sight,
very good hearing, don't walk very fast.
I think it's asking for trouble having traffic coming
and going past these old people.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:54:56
So I stand with my previous comments of the, even the application before this, that site
is the site.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:55:01
Whether there's a bit of barbed wire between one side of a fence part of the field to the
other is a bit irrelevant.
It's a green space within the village that needs to be kept.
I do have a concern and then thinking about it.
So I stand on what I said previously
about making sure we look after rural green space.
But concern I do have and looking on,
I knew I knew something is,
and it might not be a planning issue,
could be a planning issue,
but that old people's car park
is their old people's car park.
And I believe that there's the only right of way
across there was for the farmer to get to his fields so without that having
that checked okay civil action or not that's that is a car park allocated so
with with how many cars driving through their car park is very concerning very
But otherwise, a stand -on.
Yeah. Thank you.
Finally.
I listened to it all and one of the things you have to know
that when you come to these applications,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:56:11
only through last counts did we ever get the health authority
to actually make any bids for funding.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 5:56:18
There was nothing done before that.
We had policies and groups done that.
And when it comes to making comments around conditions and flippant comments about I'm
disappointed with somebody doing something, I can't spend the public money in such a way
as throw money up against the wall and then turn around to somebody and say, well, A,
we haven't got any social housing, and then B, we're going to throw some money at an appeal,
and we haven't got that.
And B, we haven't got a child down the road who's got special education, indeed, we haven't
got no money for them.
but we'll ardently do something and go down something,
even though we know all the realities of the finances
of the council.
When you make a decision, you have
to take the whole situation into consideration,
not in the narrative of a political narrative
or what you might want to say.
And that's really why I said I've
proved the application, because you
have to be sensible, mature, and adult about these things.
Planning should not be a political decision.
It should be a strategic decision based on facts.
If we're going to make planning a political decision
You know you you're going to end up not actually winning anything for anybody so we do know and that's how I see it
Yeah, so if you want to have a political argument about something and always be my guest
I'll give you one but we don't focus on our application two more speakers, and then I'm going to go to the vote
so council poll I
am so
Close this is a finally balanced
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:57:48
Cllr Chris Poll - 5:57:55
application. I am so close to voting in favour of being with the officers
recommendations but I cannot in all conscience with the previous two that
it's you know strange coincidence that all three are so similar yet we're
talking about different numbers and different places. The integrity of
plans is so important and it really needs to be tested.
Right okay. Councillor Huxley. Thank you Chairman I will be very quick we've spent a lot of
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:58:28
time on this but I Councillor Pohl has stolen quite a bit of my thunder but the
Cllr Andy Huxley - 5:58:35
only thing I'd add to that the only thing I was thinking that in a strange
way was that if we accepted the 24 houses it may stop the 47 coming back but that's
another storey but I still have misgivings about the schooling aspects and the health
care situations and I'm mindful to either abstain or reject the application.
Can we just get a little input from our solicitor and then I'm gonna go to the vote.
Yeah I don't want to labour the point because I think I've made it earlier
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:59:18
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 5:59:23
quite clearly but this is a tilted balance situation so if you are minded
to refuse the application, then you have to consider
that the adverse impacts of committing the development would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
You've talked about the lack of, or the need for housing,
and the need for affordable housing.
So that has significant weight, and you do have to bear that in mind.
The reasons for refusal I've heard have been in terms of the infrastructure.
And the report sets out quite clearly that there's infrastructure in terms of affordable housing,
there's also education contributions and contributions to the health service.
And the consultees are satisfied that those needs arising from this development
can be adequately met by those contributions.
And you would need expert evidence to the contrary.
I've heard mentions of dentists.
I've never heard a planning application be refused
for lack of a dentist.
The healthcare contribution to the ICB, we can't possibly ask
for more than they are asking.
When they're a consultee, it would be totally unreasonable
to say, oh, we want to give you more
Then you're saying is sufficient as a result of this development. So I would just ask members to bear that in mind
Okay. Thank you very much
we have a
proposal
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 6:01:04
Before us which has been seconded go with the officers recommendation for the 24 houses on this site in Bearden
All those in favour, please show
For
All those against?
Seven.
Do I have a counter proposition?
With reasons why?
Can I have a counter proposition?
Oh, your abstention. Sorry.
That's fallen is a accountable position.
Hopefully, the offices can help.
The site lies outside the defined development boundary in the made, be it to plan, and in
the countryside for the purpose of the development plan.
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 6:02:16
The proposal therefore conflicts with the neighbourhood plan and VELP, Vail of Ellesbury
Local Spatial Strategy.
This runs counter to the MPPF policy that the planning system should be plan led.
Also, the other harm is significant adverse landscape and visual effects of the site.
A loss of undeveloped gap in the area with a green lung which will be gone forever.
And this is proper agricultural land.
This would not address the fundamental change in openness and land use settlement that is there at the moment.
Okay?
The only thing you can add probably is regarding Councillor Gomes' point and Councillor Gibbons' point about the access being questionable
and whether that harms the existing old people's home
or the care and that conflicts with.
If you want policy numbers, you got S2, S3, D3 of VELP,
and page one, H02 of bit and plan.
Can we go now?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 6:03:47
It's not being patented yet.
That's what we're doing.
Right, that's been proposed.
and you understand the reasons why someone's gonna second that? Okay. Can I
just cheque Chairman in terms of consistency at present I have from
members and I appreciate it's been part of the debate and Catherine's touched
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 6:04:28
upon it but from what Councillor Hussain has just said the sole sort of issues
are the proposal being outside the development boundary and in the countryside and therefore
the conflict with spatial strategy.
And then secondly, the significant adverse landscape harms.
I note that as part of the debate there was discussions around sort of the lack of services
and infrastructure.
I appreciate that in terms of that's been raised but that's not part of the proposal.
or can I just cheque that the intention is for that to not be part of the proposal?
It's not my advice to give.
I'm just highlighting in terms of consistency, the previous application that was a point
that was raised that was determined on its own merits.
Members have had as part of the debate a discussion around services infrastructure and proximity
and availability of facilities.
please can I ask for confirmation whether that is intended to form a reason for refusal or not.
It was discussed, I just would like clarity one way or the other.
In which case, please may I also suggest in a similar manner that a reason for refusal be included about the lack of a section 106 agreement as well.
Thank you and that would include with regards to the mitigation on the Chiltern Beachwood Special Area of Conservation.
Thank you.
I don't want our officers to be disheartened because as I said earlier in my earlier submission,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 6:06:15
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 6:06:17
I know that they stand on a fine line and they have to go by what's in the statute book
and what's in front of them.
As the officers, my old friend Catherine, Officer Stubbs, Catherine has stated, you
can't give more than this ask for, but we live in the real world and the real world,
21 grand is neither here nor there.
I fully accept what she says.
But you know, to be, the other thing that doesn't chime well with me is...
Can I just stop you?
Just a minute, just a minute.
That was a proposal.
Who's second in it?
And do you accept those terms?
You do. If you do, can we go to the vote?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 6:06:58
Those in favour of that opposition?
Seven.
Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. Now Councillor O 'Brien, you can continue talking.
I fully accept that they stand on a fine line and they have to do what they have
to do but we give real -world decisions in the real world and hopefully they
Cllr Niknam Hussain - 6:07:25
stand against the inspectors and I get really angry that one side you're doing
a job but as a Councillor Kahn said you know children will be transported five
ten miles at 200 pound a day. Can I thank everyone for being here tonight it's
been a very long day and difficult cases to hear and also thank the members of
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 6:07:51
the public for their patience. Thank you enjoy your evening.
.