East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 19 May 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 19th May 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jonathan Waters
Share this agenda point
  1. Alice Williams
  2. Cllr Jonathan Waters
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  2. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  3. Cllr Michael Bracken
  4. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  5. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  6. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  7. Cllr Michael Bracken
  8. Cllr Martin Tett
  9. Cllr Michael Bracken
  10. Cllr Mark Roberts
  11. Cllr Michael Bracken
  12. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  13. Cllr Michael Bracken
  14. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  15. Gerrards Cross Town Council
  16. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  17. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  18. Gerrards Cross Town Council
  19. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  22. Cllr Martin Tett
  23. Public Speakers
  24. Cllr Martin Tett
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  27. Cllr Martin Tett
  28. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  29. Cllr Mark Roberts
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Mark Roberts
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  34. Public Speakers
  35. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  38. Cllr Martin Tett
  39. Public Speakers
  40. Cllr Martin Tett
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  43. Cllr Clive Harriss
  44. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  45. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  46. Cllr Maz Hussain
  47. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  48. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  49. Cllr Martin Tett
  50. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  51. Cllr Martin Tett
  52. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  53. Cllr Martin Tett
  54. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  55. Cllr Martin Tett
  56. Mr Ben Robinson
  57. Cllr Martin Tett
  58. Mr Ben Robinson
  59. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  60. Cllr Martin Tett
  61. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  62. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  63. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  64. Mr Ben Robinson
  65. Cllr Martin Tett
  66. Mr Ben Robinson
  67. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  68. Cllr Martin Tett
  69. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  70. Mr Ben Robinson
  71. Cllr Mark Roberts
  72. Mr Ben Robinson
  73. Cllr Mark Roberts
  74. Mr Ben Robinson
  75. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  76. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  77. Mr Ben Robinson
  78. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  79. Cllr Clive Harriss
  80. Cllr Martin Tett
  81. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  82. Cllr Martin Tett
  83. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  84. Cllr Martin Tett
  85. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  86. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  87. Cllr Martin Tett
  88. Ms. Lucy Dolan
  89. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  90. Cllr Mark Roberts
  91. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  92. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  93. Cllr Michael West
  94. Cllr Mark Roberts
  95. Cllr Jonathan Waters
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Kirsten Ashman
  2. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  3. Mr Richard Regan
  4. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  5. Cllr Mark Roberts
  6. Mr Richard Regan
  7. Cllr Mark Roberts
  8. Mr Ben Robinson
  9. Cllr Martin Tett
  10. Mr Richard Regan
  11. Cllr Martin Tett
  12. Mr Ben Robinson
  13. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  14. Cllr Martin Tett
  15. Mr Ben Robinson
  16. Cllr Martin Tett
  17. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  18. Cllr Martin Tett
  19. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  20. Cllr Clive Harriss
  21. Cllr Martin Tett
  22. Cllr Jonathan Waters
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:00:00
Thank you.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the
East and South Buckinghamshire area planning committee.
My name is Councillor Jonathan Waters for those who are
watching and I'm covering as chair this evening because the
chairman is unable to make it and I'm vice chairman for the
meeting of the year for this particular committee and for all those who served on it for the
year, I'd like to say thank you very much for all your time. We have got quite a number
of substitutes today, but also have been serving on quite a lot of other committees, and we
have the AGM tomorrow where everyone will know which committees we're on for the coming
year. So thank you very much. Before we start the agenda, I have a couple of housekeeping
items. For your information, this meeting is being webcast, and by entering the room,
you have consented to be filmed.
However, if members of the public do not wish
to have their image captured,
please advise the committee clerk
and we will help to sit you in a place
which will not be filmed.
The fire exits are located at the back of the chamber
and down the main stairs and out of the front doors.
Please follow me and the rest of the committee
and we would congregate outside in the space
located over the bridge towards the roundabout.
So if you've done the sort of health and safety items,
we can now move on.
Hopefully nothing like that will happen today.
Agenda item one, apologies for absence.

1 Apologies for absence

Thank you, Chairman.
Alice Williams - 0:01:35
We've had apologies from Councillor David Moore,
Councillor Cole -Caesar, Councillor Matthew Hinde,
Councillor Wendy Matthews, Councillor Jackson Ng,
and Councillor Stuart Wilson.
And we have Councillor Catherine Gibbon
substituting for David Moore,
Councillor Mohamed Ayers substituting for Wendy Matthews,
Councillor Maz Houssaint substituting for Councillor Jackson and Councillor
Mike West substituting for Matthew Hind. Thank you. Agenda item two is Chairman

2 Chairman's Announcement

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:06
announcements but I've covered that already so we'll move on to item three

3 Declarations of interest

decoration of interest. Do we have any decoration of interest? No I can't see

4 Minutes of the previous meeting

any agenda item for my have the approval for the minutes of the 31st of March
2026 on pages three to six of the agenda pack all in favour she's not the many
who are here so yes so I think it's only yourself and I read the minutes
absolutely right okay thank you we'll now move I was I was signed minutes and
and obviously take them as accepted.

Planning Applications

5 PL/25/4711/FA - Site Of Former Knowle Croft, 72 Camp Road, Gerrards Cross

We now move on to Agenda Item 5, PL stroke 25, stroke 4711, stroke FA.
That's site of the former Noel Croft, 72 Camp Road, Gerald's Cross.
And that's on pages 7 to 30 of the pack.
I will now hand over to the case officer Lucy Dolan who introduced the item.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:03:33
Thank you. Good evening chair and councillors. The application is located
at 72 Camp Road in Gerard's Cross. The proposal is for construction of two
detached wedding houses and garages together with alterations to existing
vehicular access and associated hard -standing and landscaping works.
There are three small updates provided to members.
In reference in terms of the report, for clarification at paragraphs 1 .5 and 5 .4, the references
to a five -year supply relates to a five -year housing land supply.
Additionally, at paragraph 5 .7 where it reads title balance, this should read tilted balance.
Furthermore, Councillor Broome called the application forward to planning committee
yesterday stating to scrutinise whether it is in keeping with the character of the area
in which it is proposed.
The site lies to the northern side of Camp Road,
but towards the southern area of the road itself.
The site is currently devoid of built form
with the original house being lawfully demolished
under a previous permission on site
for replacement dwelling.
The site benefits from an existing dual access point
with the plot narrowing towards its most eastern end.
The site is located within a residential area
of exceptional character,
has a defined woodland road typology and was and is within an area of a special
character as defined in the Chiltern South Bucks
Townscape character assessment due to its high quality townscape. Local Plan
Policy H10 relates to residential areas of exceptional character but this also
needs to be put into the context of the MPPF which states that planning
decisions should support development that make efficient use of land. Within
the context of the policy it states that the council will not normally permit
promote proposals involving the development of sites which do not
reflect the prevailing density of the area. However, appeal decisions have
acknowledged this but have regarded that the policy doesn't preclude such
development, it is just a sensible safeguard. In this regard the proposed
density levels are 11 dwellings per hectare with the density of Camp Road
averaging around 6 .6. Whilst noting these figures the resultant density of the
site remains to be considerably low and the existing dwellings per hectare along
Camp Road reflects the rear garden depths of the western plots which are
not appreciated in the street scene. Therefore whilst noting the policy
restraint in this instant the resultant density level wouldn't have an adverse
effect on the prevailing character and is not apparent within the street scene.
In terms of the plot frontage and overall plot shape and size there are
other examples of dwellings along Camp Road which have similar plot widths and
size such that the development would not appear visually out of keeping when
viewed within the context of the street scene.
Separation distances and the setback from the highway
are sufficient in order to ensure
the majority of important features
characteristic of the site are attained,
such as landscaping, and the design of each proposed dwelling
is considered to be of a high standard
and compatible with the character and size
of existing development in the facility.
This slide shows the location of the plot
within the context of Camp Road.
It's highlighted out in red.
This slide shows the proposed site plan of the two dwellings. They were positioned in alignment
with northern and southern neighbouring dwellings and will have plot frontage widths of 21 and 19
metres which fall into the scope of the prevailing plot widths which range from 18 to 28 metres.
Spacing is maintained to the front to adequately serve the required parking spaces of three which
is also inclusive of detached garages with each dwelling having their own access point. Highways
have confirmed that the configuration of the proposed parking is acceptable and a
landscaping scheme is conditioned to be submitted prior to the initial
occupation. The next slide show the elevation and floor plans of both plots
one and plot two as well as CGI images. Each show a five bedroom dwelling spread
across three floors. First floor and above flank windows and both windows are
conditioned in both dwellings are conditioned to be obscurely glazed.
So this is plot one with the CGI image.
And then this is plot two with the CGI image as well.
This slide indicates what the resulting street scene
would look like.
Ridge and Eve's heights are commensurate
and the overall design and appearance of the two dwellings
follow the established character.
For the benefit of those members
who did not attend site, here is the context of the street scene in Long Camp Road. To
the north along Camp Road, the context is a collection of larger plots and associated
dwellings set within highly landscaped boundaries. Towards the southern and eastern end of Camp
Road, close to the application site, there is a tendency for development to be more closely
sited set within smaller plots with less boundary treatments, resulting in the dwellings appearing
more visually apparent within the street scene, and the proposed two dwellings would be reflective
this context. Officers further thought it would be helpful to show plots of
similar width and depth within Camp Road in proximity to the application. This
image denotes the application site in green with those similar plots in terms
of width and depth outlined in red. In conclusion it is considered that the
proposal would not lead to any adverse impacts on the special and exceptional
character of the site or locality in general, nor would it lead to any adverse
impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties or lead to any adverse
highways or ecological impacts. Furthermore the council cannot
demonstrate a five -year housing land supply in the South Bucks area and the
site's proposed redevelopment will make effective and efficient use of land
within a developed area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would
provide for a sustainable form of development that meets the requirements
of the MPPF, development plan policies and the Jerras Cross neighbourhood plan.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Lucy. We will now move on to speakers. Each speaker has
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:09:36
three minutes. There are three speakers I have listed.
Councillor Michael Bracken for Buckinghamshire Council, Councillor
Frances Nathan, Jerris Cross Town Council and Andy McDougall who is the agent.
Can I ask Councillor Michael Bracken to start when he's ready?
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:10:05
Thank you very much Chairman and committee. I'm speaking in my capacity as ward Councillor
for George Goss and Denham and no other capacity. I'd like to commend the officer for the quality
of the report but I don't agree with the conclusion. I think to go straight into it, under point
1 .4 of the report it stated the proposal would not lead to any adverse impacts on the character
of the site. I don't think that is the correct formulation. Policy H10 refers to residential
areas of exceptional character. So we should be talking about the impact on the residential
area of exceptional character. I think in the report, there was a summary about policy
H10, but I think H10 is a much longer policy, which I think it would be worth the committee
understanding in full. So for example, Lim A states that the plot of any proposed dwellings
should be larger or similar in shape and size to the majority of the areas in the area of
exceptional character. And if I can refer you to paragraph 415 of your report, it states
that the development would result in 11 dwellings per hectare as the officer mentioned compared
to 6 .6 on the road. So I think it's very clear that on the implementation of this policy
that this would not comply with the policy.
I note the comments the officer made about appeal decisions.
I would suggest you explore whether those are indeed
in relation to appeals and relation to residential areas
of exceptional character.
There are other limbs of that policy,
including the sizing of and sizing of ancillary buildings,
which I think are also not in accordance,
but I think even within the report itself
on the basis of what I've just outlined.
It would not be in accordance with LIM A of the policy.
Second point I want to talk about is under the trees.
There was justification for removal of two TPO trees
on the basis they have limited remaining life expectancy.
I don't think you have the evidence in front of you
to substantiate that.
That's an incorrect assessment of the grounds of a TPO.
A TPO can be removed on the basis of a dying
or dangerous tree, but that's not what is stated here.
Lastly, in relation to the tilted balance, which I understand the report suggests is
in effect, it's for you to, as committee members, to decide how you wish to take that into account
when you weigh the factors in your decision. But I think even with a tilted balance, I
do not think that a decision is in favour of justified for the reasons I've set out.
I would also like to note that many others, me and many others, consider the tilted balance
is in any case less tilted than it was at the start of the year, given the status of
emerging local plan. So in summary, I think there is clear grounds for rejection on the
basis of non -compliance with policy H10, insufficient justification of removal of TPO trees. Should
you be minded to approve it though, I think there are other conditions which you might
wish to consider which I can go into should you wish.
Thank you, Councillor Bracken. Do any of the committee members have any questions for Councillor
I reckon.
Councillor Hogg.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:13:19
What's the local response to this application?
Yes, it has a higher density than the surrounding area,
but it largely fits the design
of the other houses in the area.
So in a sense I'm a little surprised this one's being called in. I wonder if
you could provide some context around the concerns of the local people.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:13:52
I'm not sure the question is related to actually what
Councillor Bracken said but if you want to word it in a format which is related
to that then that would be fine.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:14:01
All right, let's specifically refer to H10, the residential areas of exceptional character.
You mentioned around H10 that the bar for development is higher and around the design
of the larger area is more sensitive. I wonder if you could elaborate on that also in reference
to the views of local residents?
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:14:51
Thank you very much. I think it goes to the heart of how an area of exceptional character
is viewed. And I think for residents they will be mindful of, for example, all the covenants
that are subject for various land issues. So although those are not directly planning
issues, they do go to the heart of what is expected on this particular road. And there
are indeed covenants in relation to the site of ancillary buildings, the size of plots,
minimum sizes of plots. So I think there is quite strong feeling on this because the nature
of this area is very unique and that is why it is recognised in the way that it is.
Thank you. Councillor Tett and then Councillor Roberts.
I was going to try and help Councillor Hogg in terms of phrasing his question in a way that
Councillor Bracken would have found easier to respond to. I think he's actually managed to get
there in terms of trying to understand maybe I just asked the question anyway
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:15:47
I'd be interested to know you've made a number of very pertinent points are
these points that other residents have raised with you and if so and what
quantity of residents so just trying to get an idea of how widespread the points
you have raised as a local councillor are in terms of their hold within the
local area and close so just ask a second question which relates to the
TPOs of the trees on the site. I know this area. I mean it is quite a well wooded area
Are these ancient trees?
or are these relatively modern trees and
Therefore I'm trying to understand the nature of their loss that may be a question more for the officers
But I'm just asking if you are aware as a local member
Whether that's the case because you have mentioned the TPOs in your submission
it yeah I keep the question here if council Brecken hasn't got the
information and we can ask the officer later I he may or may not have the
information mr. chairman okay I in terms of the local residents raising this with
me I am actually a resident of Camp Road or some distance from this proposed
development so I am well aware of the large number of concerns on this through
are what road whatsapp group amongst other things in relation to the trees I
think they are significant trees because they are specifically TPO there are many
many trees around the area not all of them are TPO they were identified for
TPO because of what they are so I do think they they weren't further
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:17:21
investigation in your deliberations thank you
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:17:30
Councillor Roberts and then Councillor Gibbon. Thank you and you've mentioned
several points around the residential areas except for character could you
just pick out which is the most significant of the features that account
for the exceptional character I'd be interested in which you highlight as the
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:17:54
most significant item? Well I think the policy has six limbs and I think that
there are three that are relevant and I think the officer who's identified that
the plot width is a sort of preeminent factor in the report but I think the
other two are equally important so the the the the area of the plots as a whole
even though the frontage may be the same it goes to the heart of the area it's
it's very normal in estates of this type for there to be prescribed minimum total area of a plot.
I don't think that's an unusual thing in such a residential area and why it has such the character
that it does. And then in terms of the siting of the proposed dwelling, you know extension
and ancillary buildings, there are positions in the plans for garages in front of the buildings.
You may look at that and say that is not dissimilar to others, but in fact the closeness of those to the boundary would be atypical.
And that's not to say there aren't exceptions to that somewhere on the road, but most of the plots have covenant provisions on the sightings of those sort of ancillary buildings, and I believe that is what this is subject to.
So even though that's not a direct planning matter, I think it goes to the heart of what is the nature of the exception of the character of the area.
Thank you. Councillor Gibbon.
Thank you, Damon.
I've got a couple of questions.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:19:17
One is, you mentioned that the size should sort of relate,
or the width should relate to the majority of plots being a similar size.
I wondered if you knew what the majority was,
and how different, how many there were of that sort of small size.
And the other question was, are there any other H10, parts of the H10 policy that you
think would be helpful for us to hear?
Sure.
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:19:52
I don't have the data, but maybe the officer does, but I think I refer you to all the comments
I made about the overall density.
I think that provides you with the answer to what is the normal size of a plot if the
Average size is six dwellings per hectare
rather than the 11 implied here.
And then in terms of the limbs of the policies,
it's the three that I particularly highlighted today.
I wouldn't wish to draw any further, others to attendance.
Thank you.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:20:25
I don't think we have any other questions, Councillor Bracken.
So thank you for your contribution.
I now call on Councillor Francis Nathan from Girard Cross Town Council.
Gerrards Cross Town Council - 0:20:38
You have three minutes when you are ready to speak.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening to everyone.
My argument is this.
Camp Road is one of the most affluent areas in Girard's Cross.
This proposed plan will fundamentally alter the character of the entire estate.
The design scale and appearance of the proposed houses does not fit in with the architectural character of the surrounding houses.
Now the plots of land are meant for single dwelling homes and not two or three or more houses.
Covenant on the land to restrict the subdivision and resultant size of these plots would be a legal restriction which has no bearing on the assessment of this plan.
The plots of land are significantly large for an intended purpose, that is, to have sufficient land area as play area for children, grandchildren.
There is also a vast gap between these houses, which will be considerably reduced if this plan is approved.
This approval is a violation of the rights of existing residents who bought these luxury properties for privacy and to be of a certain distance from their neighbours.
Building two houses on a piece of land meant for a single house will reduce the space between existing homes and these two new proposed houses.
Allowing this will set a precedent for other owners to follow.
What if someone wants to build three or four houses? Can we stop them if we allow this?
Well, we are responsible to take care of the interests of our constituents and their properties.
As such, it is our responsibility to look after their interests and not approve plans
that will affect the value, the aesthetics of the road and neighbouring houses.
I urge you, therefore, to please not approve or allow these houses to be built to protect
the value of neighbouring properties as it will set a benchmark or precedent for other
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:23:06
owners to do the same. Thank you. Do we have any questions?
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:23:12
Councillor Hogg. You mentioned the loss of privacy and I wonder if you could
elaborate on your concerns around that, whether it's a concern around
overlooking into a house or a garden and how you see that as being different from
the current setup along the road?
Gerrards Cross Town Council - 0:23:46
Well, I think I didn't say anything about privacy, did I? I didn't. No, I didn't. I didn't say
anything about privacy. I was talking more about, you know, people wanting that space. I mean,
you buy a piece of land with a single house,
and then you demolish that house
and build maybe flat something.
I mean, this is what we're doing here,
is gonna start something which we will not be able to stop.
Because if the neighbour now wants to put up two houses
or three houses, how can we say no
when we have approved this?
So there's nothing about privacy.
I mean, there's sufficient privacy
because the houses are sufficiently far apart.
But these two houses,
I mean imagine driving down a road where you see all these houses in big lots and suddenly you come across something which looks like
a stunted
Development two houses cramped into one
I mean you're definitely going to reduce the value of the of that of the houses on that particular road or at least neighbouring houses
Thank you
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:46
Just a quick comment and particularly for anyone who be watching proceedings
the planning committee
Doesn't make any decision at all in terms of value of properties. It's not in our gift
We just have to look at the planning regulations. So that is not something that we would
Be involved in the other item and I think you did realise
Was that covenants again covenants are a matter between the individuals who hold those covenants
They are not something that we have any powers over at all as a planning committee because any stage
Residents can change
Covenants with each other and go to law we have no ability to stop that so covenants are not something for us
They are for the local individuals who wish to take those up their matter of law, but outside of the committee
So I just want to make that that of what we're able to make a decision on and what we're not able to make
decision on so we don't get confused with what's being stated and when people
have listened to what's said that's very very important. Okay thank you very much
and we don't have any other questions. Councillor Nathan, so thank you much for
your contribution. I now call on Andy MacDougall who is the agent.
Public Speakers - 0:26:10
Chair, members of the committee, firstly I'd like to thank the case officer for what
a balanced, thorough and carefully reasoned report which clearly recommends approval of this
application subject to the proposed conditions. This application comes before you following the
granting of a previous permission for a substantial detached dwelling on this site. In light of the
Council's acknowledged housing land supply position and recognising the site's highly
sustainable urban location, the applicant has sought to bring forward a revised proposal that
makes more effective use of land while remaining policy compliant. As members will be aware,
The site is located within a residential area of exceptional character.
However, the designation does not prohibit redevelopment. Indeed, as the officer's report
correctly identifies, a number of comparable redevelopment schemes have been previously
approved within this area. The key question, therefore, is not whether development can occur
here in principle, but whether this particular proposal is acceptable in its own merits.
Having undertaken a full assessment, officers conclude that it can.
The report is clear that the development would not cause any unacceptable harm to the character
or appearance of the area, neighbouring amenity, highway safety, drainage, ecology or trees.
Crucially, no objections have been raised by any of the Council's statutory consultees
or technical experts.
I fully appreciate that the local residents and ward councillors have expressed concerns
and those concerns deserve to be heard and respected.
However, planning decisions must ultimately be based on evidence and
an adopted policy, not on opposition alone. The professional planning
judgement before members this evening is that the concerns raised do not
amount to a sustainable planning reason for refusal. Importantly, the proposal
accords with both the development plan and the overarching objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework. It represents the sustainable and
use of this site within the built -up urban area in a location where future
residents will have access to existing services infrastructure and transport
connexions. Members should also note that unilateral undertaking has already
been secured to address the impacts of the burning beaches special area
conservation ensuring that development is appropriately mitigated. If approved
tonight this scheme can be delivered quickly it will make a meaningful
contribution to the council's housing land supply position in the short term
It will also generate significant community infrastructure levy contributions to support local infrastructure and services.
Ultimately, members are often faced with a difficult decision when there is growth and where growth should go.
If the council is serious about meeting housing need while resisting inappropriate development in less sustainable locations,
for example, Greenbelt or Greybelt sites,
then sustainably located urban sites such as this are exactly where this types of development that national and local policy support.
For all those reasons, I respectfully ask members to support the officer's recommendation and grant planning permission for you this evening.
Thank you for your time.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:29:09
Thank you. Do we have any questions for the agent?
Councillor Tett and then Councillor Roberts.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:29:16
Yes, thank you. You said in your submission that this was a sustainable location.
I mean, I know the area. Could you maybe amplify a little why you consider this to be sustainable?
Is it sustainable in terms of transport? What are the key facets that make this site sustainable?
I think the simple answer is it kind of on all left on all facets of sustainability.
I think there's alternative modes of transport available.
The local facilities and local infrastructure
are not a significant distance from the site
Public Speakers - 0:29:51
and can be kind of journeyed to,
whether it's walking or cycling.
I do not think this is or can be classified
as an unsustainable location.
Maybe I just could push a little bit harder on that
because sustainability is an important aspect.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:30:06
Normally it's defined in terms of things
like transport and so on. Is this on a transport route?
Public Speakers - 0:30:15
Camp Road doesn't necessarily have a bus route along it, but I think bus stops are eminently
within walkable distance to the site. So you'd have to walk or cycle to a bus stop?
Yes. Yes. And is there a train station nearby?
Within walking distance, I think you could... it's not an unacceptable distance away.
I think so again, you'd have to walk or cycle some distance to to get to a transport
But you still feel this is sustainable, yes
Just one
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:30:49
Point in terms on the site itself. It already has planned permission for a single dwelling. So so it
probably gone through that but I
Was sorry chairman with respect. I was questioning the
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:31:01
applicant agents use of the term sustainable and what he meant by that term because we've used the term in previous
discussions of planning committees and it normally has related to aspects to do with transport ready access to
transport bus or train routes and so on I
Understand clearly, you know, you could build a house on it if that's the definition of sustainable then yes
It's sustainable then which case virtually any site anywhere would be sustainable
Yeah, I think quite often when we're talking about that we're looking at
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:31:35
Greenfield sites of which this is this is not. Yeah okay.
Councillor Robertson then Councillor Gibbon.
Yeah I've got two questions.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:31:45
First one is again around the area of exceptional character.
Which aspects of the proposed proposed scheme do you put forward as
as preserving the exceptional character of the area?
I think for the same reasons as the case officer,
Public Speakers - 0:32:07
I think that the design of the dwellings is appropriate.
I think the density proposed is not unacceptable
and is comparable to the existing densities.
And I think the case officer report clearly sets out
that we are at kind of midpoint of plot widths
and kind of other features of the development
are entirely characteristic of the area.
OK. The second question I had, if I may.
We've had mention of there being trees subject to TPOs
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:32:41
in the case officer's report presentation and the other comments.
I think I've seen somewhere that in your information
that you'd said there were no TPOs applying to the site.
I'm just wondering if you could clarify that point.
Public Speakers - 0:33:00
So the site is subject to some TPOs. A tree report was submitted. This has been
expertly considered by the council's own tree arboriculturalist who has come back
and has agreed with the position on the trees that they have a short life cycle
left on them and does not raise objections.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Kevin.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:33:29
Thank you. I'm a bit concerned about your definition of the, well not really the definition,
but to do with the width of the plot because it says in the report that the plot widths
have a variance between 18 and 28 metres and on this application it states that the front
is 21 metres, but where the houses actually would be, it's only, not 21, it was more than
that, I can't remember, it was 42, wasn't it, 42 metres for both houses, but where the
houses actually would be built, it would only be 30 metres. And the sort of character of
that area is that the space around each house, the sort of green around each sort of house
to make it look attractive and spacious but where the houses actually are, I just wonder
how you're going to design them so there would still be space around when it's a much much smaller
distance, it's only 15 metres per plot at that part of each individual plot.
Public Speakers - 0:34:36
I think the answer there is as you journey down Camp Road you experience the plot widths from
in effect, the front boundaries.
And the report sets out that these front boundaries are circa 21 metres,
which I'd argue is in accordance with the front plot boundaries of other comparable sites.
I think as the plan is clearly set out, these properties do remain set off the boundary.
I think distances to the flanks, I think there are numerous examples of similar distance dwellings to flanks.
that distance allows for rich landscaping schemes to be proposed
and obviously there's the condition which secures such to the satisfaction of the council.
So I think while clearly the issue is a subjective issue,
for the reasons set out in the case source report and obviously our submission statements,
I think the proposed designs are entirely appropriate.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:35:43
So you would have space to have green area around each of the houses even with that much
reduced width?
Yes I'm confident you would.
Public Speakers - 0:35:47
Do we have any other questions?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:52
Councillor Tett.
Yes sorry just a quick one.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:35:58
Point of clarification, in your submission you said that the approval of this application
would make a, in your words, meaningful contribution to the five -year land supply.
I make this a net addition of one property. Is that correct?
Public Speakers - 0:36:14
it is but I would point out that this authority has a
Chronic under supply of housing and there have been appeals where one house has been found to be significantly positive
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:36:28
Thank you. I was just clarifying your definition of meaningful contribution
Public Speakers - 0:36:34
I would point out appeals have also found that one house is significantly positive in
the planning balance.
Thank you.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:36:44
I don't think there's any other questions.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
We now can go to the officer of any points that you would like information on.
Councillor Harris
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:37:04
Thank You chairman just one question looking on the
site of Google Maps
There appears to be a big circle of land behind this is that a protected metropolitan land
It is a bull strode camp. It's an Iron Age
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:37:22
Camp is a protected ancient monument and that this site doesn't encroach
Towards it so we don't have to
worry about that but it is a protected it's protected side yeah
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:35
councillor Hussein and then councillor Ted I think you have any pictures of the
Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:37:40
rest of the road image of the rest of the houses sorry I'm not very familiar
there just quickly and so the only ones I have it's um this is the immediate
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:37:48
site so this is the empty plot as as it stands and then this is as highlighted
you can see, so that's the red site edged here
and this road highlighted section there,
that's the road prevailing character there.
They're the only ones that I have of the site,
kind of area.
I think in terms of the photographs on that,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:38:17
I think the plan you showed with similar
widths of plot and size was relevant
because for those of us who went on the site visit,
there is quite a difference,
and you can see that actually
where all the red markings are on that map.
They change, they become,
there actually is quite a different types of houses
are in that bottom section.
Some a lot lower, some with all sorts of different designs.
If you come, as you're coming in,
the largest houses as we came into the road
were on that section and they, yes, were significantly different.
So the road isn't completely homogenous in terms of how it looks.
It's a difficult one because it's a private road so you won't have ever found it on Google
Maps to actually have a look at it.
So that's why it's a difficult one for people who, if you haven't been on the site visit,
you're not going to actually have seen the differences which are there.
And for those who did visit, we found that important to actually see because you could
see the house opposite for instance which had exactly a similar width to it
and as you went down there you could really get the visual feel of it and so
that was that was useful because it rather than just being in a report
saying which ones were similar in any way but they were all quite different
and so actually the ones nearest in when we looked at like design for instance
They actually would look closer to the designs come forward further down the road
The designs are all completely different from different ages and different times. They're not they're not the same
Thank You, mr. Chairman
Councillor tettanek, sorry. Yes. Thank you. I have a number of questions. That's okay. Mr. Chairman
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:40:06
I raised the issue of the trees earlier and I asked whether they were ancient trees
I know this site I mean this area used to be historically looking old map heavily wooded
I just like to clarify whether in fact these are ancient trees or whether they are just if you like modern saplings
Which can just be removed and replaced
So in terms of the TPO, it's a grouping TPO
That's along different section of Camp Road and Valley Road, which is to the north of Camp Road and it was made in 1995
So the actual grouping TPO, I don't know how many trees it includes, but it is
quite a widespread collective TPO grouping. But as mentioned there our
arboricultural officer has assessed it and concluded in line with the report
that was submitted that those trees can go and there are no other harmful impacts.
Sorry can I just ask my question again because I'm not sure you've answered it.
You may not know the answer by the way, which is fine, but just so you know I'm
clear are these are they part of an ancient woodland or not they're not
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:41:08
definitely not okay I can I can double -cheque on my secondly biodiversity
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:41:15
net gain it's referred to that but that there'd be a net loss of biodiversity on
this but an alternative site had been procured where abouts is that
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:41:28
alternative site and this is subject to a condition which will be discharged and
and at that point in time they will purchase credits and then they'll submit those details to our ecology officer.
So it may or may not be in the same area?
Unlikely to be. Okay.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:41:45
It's said that the existing house had been demolished. Do we know when that demolition took place?
And the discharge of conditions was in 2021.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:41:54
I'm not sure precise timings of when it was demolished. So it's been quite recently demolished.
presumably in
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:42:09
anticipation of his application and lastly precedent. I just like to understand I think it's been raised by other colleagues
This is an area of exceptional
Residential area of exceptional character if we accept one house becoming two in the plot
Is that setting a precedent? So for example if other houses in the road subsequently applied for two houses
would we be having an officer report that said this precedent has now been set because this has been agreed here.
I'm minded of one of the first cases I sat on this committee for in Beaconsfield, where that was exactly quoted to us.
Well, you can't turn this one down because there's another one being proved down the road.
So effectively, and I know that we're looking specifically at this application, I understand that entirely,
but hypothetically, were other applications now to be brought forward,
this would set a precedent for the consideration
of those other future applications, would it not?
It's not so much a precedent.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:43:09
So in the example you may refer to in Beckonsfield,
those three dwellings form part of the character of the area
and they weren't solely the character of the area,
but they form part of it.
So what we're saying with this application is
the subdivision of this plot into two
would be in line with the width of other plots
in this part of the street such that it wouldn't be detrimental to the character of the area.
So that would then become part of the character, but that is already part of the character.
So it wouldn't necessarily set a precedent.
It would just be, form part of what is already the character, which is a mixture of pots,
sizes and whips in the street.
Right.
But precedent is a material planning consideration.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:52
If you can show that other houses have been built in a similar style recently in the area. Is that fair?
It's fair to say that it's it's it's materially
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:44:03
We make comes when we take into decisions. We are consistent in applying the policy
But it doesn't necessarily follow that if you've granted permission for one site that you have to grant permission for another
Because each up each application needs to be considered on its own merits
So if you had a site further down the road, for example,
where the houses are much larger and the plots are bigger,
that might have a different outcome
because the immediate vicinity of the site
would have a different character.
So just granting permission for one
doesn't automatically follow that any application
that came in for subdivision of plots would be acceptable.
Each one would be judged on its merits.
Can I just come back on one of your questions?
Please do.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:44:55
You asked the question about the demolition and when you visit the site, it obviously
was demolished the house for the previous application because these footings had been
dug out ready for that.
Obviously, it stopped at some point.
So I think with the application is where the demolition came in.
So it's not related particularly to this, but it was demolished prior to that and they'd
started to do some work on that and then stopped.
So I have no understanding why,
but that's what we had to avoid when we went on site.
We didn't go down in the holes.
So that I thought was just helpful.
It's not totally related to this.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:45:30
Yes, I was trying to understand whether this was a site
that had been vacant maybe for decades,
or whether in fact this had been demolished
in anticipation of a development occurring imminently,
possibly through this application.
Thank you.
Well I've double -checked the trees it's not ancient woodland.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:45:50
So can I quickly ask on the trees actually the reason for the trees to be
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:45:58
removed is it is it trees to do with the change of the access point or is it to
do with the building of the house?
So I think that's a good thing.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:46:08
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll double cheque that.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:46:15
But it's important to note that the council's tree office. So the reason,
the reason that they've said that the removal is justified.
Is the limited remaining life expectancy of the trees.
And there are.
In terms of our experts in the council date that who we take our advice from as officers
in terms of
Whether or not I'm doing removal of a tree preservation order tree is acceptable
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:46:41
So tell me just an observation if I made to the officers, it's slightly counterintuitive
I mean this area has got a tea tea preservation of order on it over a grouping of trees
The officers are telling us they're not ancient woodland. But on the other hand, they have very limited life expectancy
It sounds like you know, they're either quite old in which case they've limited life expectancy or they're quite new in which case
They would have quite long life expectancy. I'm not quite clear which it is. It would depend on the tree and the species but
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:47:09
We know what species these are we'd have to do we would have to cheque
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 0:47:17
Waters and one of them the northern tree to be removed as an ash and the southern ones a silver birch
Thank you.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:47:26
Do we have any more questions?
Councillor Hogg.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:47:35
The representations that have come in are very focused on this H10 policy.
and you've written in 4 .9 that the features are characteristic of the
sites and the street scene should be retained. Design of
dwellings would be of a high standard and compatible. I wonder why, just
such a clear contrast of opinion to local residents on that important point.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:48:29
I mean, I can't comment on other people's opinions. We can only go, we're making our
professional opinion as to whether it meets or doesn't meet the policy. I know there's
been talk of policy H10. I think it's worth looking at the context of that. The policy
is over 25 years old and in the time that's passed since, there has been different appeal
decisions and also changes in policy which have helped us to understand the best way
to assess that policy and what is likely to be supported at appeal. So I know that was
question earlier. We had one in Gregory's Road in Beckonsfield where the
inspector specifically said the policy H10 of the local plan states that the
council will not normally, and they highlighted normally, permit proposals
involving the development of sites which do not reflect the prevailing density of
the area. This ordinance does not preclude such development but is a
sensible safeguard given the effects that could result from insensitively
design proposals. In that case it was flat in a residential special area, a special character
and that went on to be approved by the Inspector. There was another recent one we had in Westfield
Road in Beckonsfield, some of the members will probably recall that one. Again, that
was refused by the Council and by the Committee. The Inspector said whilst this policy does
does not normally permit the conversion of single dwellings into flats. Such development
is not unacceptable in principle, provided it retains the important features of the site
or the street scene and retains the consistency of built form and siting and spacing. So in
respect to this application, yes, we've acknowledged and we acknowledge in the report the density
slightly higher than the surroundings, but that's largely based on the fact that many
the dwellings in Epperson's. You've got very, very deep gardens, unusually deep,
which you don't really see those in the street scene when you're walking down the street.
So when you're looking at the character and you're travelling down the street, what you
see is the built form and the spacing between dwellings and the size of the width of the
plots. In this case, the spacing is similar to other dwellings. The width of the plots
is comparable to what was in the street.
And the design is also in character,
which there is a variance of character,
but this, the style of dwelling that's proposed
isn't within that character.
So when you look at that in the round,
and the purpose of the policy is to protect
the character, or the special character of Camp Road,
we consider that the proposal would protect that,
and is therefore acceptable.
Councillor Roberts.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:51:27
Yes, I'm gonna return to the point that's been raised
before about precedent, but from a slightly different angle.
We've got the areas showing on the screen
that are ringed in red, where some of those properties
have been, we saw when we went on the site visit,
some of those have been infilled and they're a larger,
they're closer together and denser in that area.
So to what extent and what weight is given
to the cumulative impact in the case of this application,
over and above the ones that have already had that treatment
if you like from the earlier developments
in the other part of the road?
Because my understanding, cumulative impact
is a consideration.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:52:20
We don't have, I don't think from what I'm aware of there's been lots of applications
for subdivision, not recently anywhere, not since the policy was brought into or adopted.
But in terms of, so cumulative wouldn't necessarily be relevant.
what we're looking at is the character of the street
and whether or not this proposal would be in character
or out of character with the special character of Camp Road.
So yes, there's other properties.
There's a variance in plots down Camp Road.
In this particular part,
they tend to be a little bit narrower.
When you travel further down the road the opposite way,
the pots become larger.
But I don't think it would be an issue of cumulative impact.
But in the areas that are ringed,
the larger area on the bottom right,
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:53:18
we saw when we visited the site
that some of those sites have been subdivided.
And there were some new dwellings
that had been infilled there.
So I just want to understand your assessment
of the cumulative impact of that on the density
in that part of the road.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:53:43
I suspect that the ones that you're thinking of
are ones that have been replaced,
so the dwelling, rather than subdivided,
they were replacement dwellings.
It may have been historically
that plots have been changed
and different plots have been built,
but it's not recently, nor recent years.
I think one of the reasons for that is there is that there are covenants not that that planning related
But that's it. I think over the years that has acted as a restraint on the on the road
So there hasn't hasn't been lots of subdivision, but when obviously when we're not taking to thanks for account
but I don't think there's an argument here of cumulative impacts because there isn't there isn't a
accumulation of
Of a recent recent time such that you could make that case
Councillor Harris and then councillor hog. So sure we're moving on to two comments now are we still on questions?
Okay, because I'd like to question
Is it?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:54:49
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:54:53
Council you're on to questions. Yeah, just just one last question. It's in four point six and
You mentioned about the NPPF paragraph
of 139 saying that permission should,
it says that permission should be refused for development
that fails to take the opportunities available
for improving the character and quality of an area
and the way it functions.
I mean, that is pretty, pretty broad.
I wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit
on how that gets, is part of your decision -making
for these sorts of applications?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:55:35
The first of the policy in the MPPF is to ensure good design and as officers we consider
this development would provide good design.
Also an additional home is one part of the MPPF, making more efficient use of land and
it would also achieve that.
Thank you. I think that's all the technical questions. Now we're going to move on to the
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:56:00
debate and I think Councillor Harris would like to kick off.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:56:05
Thank you very much. Whilst I have a great deal of empathy with the town councillor and
our councillor colleague, having grown up in the Middlesex box border, Hart's border
I should say.
There are a number of these sort of developments,
some with private roads, some with not.
And invariably the houses were built in the 1930s.
I know from house hunting myself,
not this size I'm sad to say,
that quite often those buildings are not habitable
the way we'd like to inhabit them now.
And when someone is going out to buy an expensive house,
they want to have something with three or four
en suite bathrooms, whichever,
and quite often the limitations of the design and build
of a 1930s dwelling or a 1950s dwelling don't permit that.
So in terms of the question that you just asked,
Councillor Hogg, the improvement to the area
and the improvement to the design is literally that.
Also, you might find the garage is a bit larger,
so you get your car in other than a Morris Minor.
It does, however, concern me the speed
with which we go to the lack of land supply.
It's a fact we're all having to face.
But it does worry me that it's reason number one,
bang, if we can't find anything else,
lands the flight, that'll do it.
For me, to give some comfort
to the town council's comments
regarding setting a precedent,
the character of this street
and the character of Links Way,
Copsewood, north of where I grew up,
those sort of areas, are large independent houses.
I would rather see two houses of this nature built there
that maintain the character of that street.
So they're still imposing homes,
but they are of a modern design and modern facilities,
rather than have a situation whereby
we get a large site like this,
and people are coming along and saying
they want to put four and five
and do a back land development
by buying the land behind them up.
There should be protection in place for this
under the covenants that Councillor has mentioned earlier.
And we as a committee should be protecting against that.
But I think this sort of infill is the way forward.
Otherwise we're gonna end up with a lot of houses
that are really a substandard in today's market.
And as we move towards more and more
environmental requirements for our homes,
they're just not going to cut the mustard.
And so if you were to buy a house, say in Chelsea,
a nice terraced house there,
it won't pass the environmental tests.
So modern dwelling of this nature will allow that.
So for me, I'm happy to go along with the views
of the officer, however, as I say,
I do have reservations about this land supply argument
coming in so hurriedly.
Thank you, Chairman, for the indulgence.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:59:13
Councillor Tep. Yes thank you. When we've had similar debates at previous local
planning committee meetings I've nearly always sided with the officers
ultimately albeit sometimes somewhat reductantly. I'm on this one quite
frankly I'm not so clear that I do. I have a lot of concerns. First of all I I
also agree with Councillor Harris this argument about the five -year land supply
always comes up and quite frankly if that Trump's everything else I don't
know why we have a local planning committee we might as well just tell the
officers to approve every single application that comes forward don't
bother us don't come to local members because that Trump's everything I
believe we're here for a purpose and a democratic purpose and that's important
and therefore we can't allow quite frankly this five -year land supply to
always Trump any other consideration I do have concerns I'm not as clear as
as the applicant that this site qualifies as sustainable.
You can have a definition about
what sustainable means in NPF terms.
I'm not sure one house is a meaningful contribution
to meeting the five -year land supply.
My biggest issue is this is a residential area
of exceptional character.
I accept that it's a relatively old local plan now,
but it was clearly put in because of the nature of this area.
The site does contain groupings of trees within a TPO
and currently there is a loss of biodiversity net,
there is no biodiversity net gain per se already agreed,
albeit it would be a condition,
but we've no idea where that biodiversity net gain would be.
It could be miles away, we just don't know.
And I'm also concerned about the precedent
that this would set.
So I do have a number of concerns
about this particular site that are different from the attitude I've taken
on previous applications which have been similar and it's fundamentally
orientated around this residential area of exceptional character. Thank you. I
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:01:16
think when if a planning committee is able to make a condition that is
important because actually that would mean you wouldn't be able to create
that as a reason for refusing because we can create a condition that we would
insist upon before anything was built. So I know you talked about the condition
and you don't know when it's going to happen but it has to happen before.
Chairman, you're talking about the biodiversity net gains? Yes, sorry, I
understand that entirely. I'm just simply saying at the moment there is a
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:01:49
biodiversity loss on the site as outlined in the officer's report and we
do not know where, potentially a very long way away, this particular site might be gained.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 1:02:05
Thank you, Chairman. Yes, with current planning applications there is a requirement for biodiversity
net gain of 10 % and there is a statutory condition that's applied that requires a biodiversity
gain plan to be submitted and approved, and it's the biodiversity gain plan that sets
out where that biodiversity will be provided. And there are multipliers, which means that
there's an increased amount of biodiversity required if it's not in the local, the LNRS,
the local nature recovery strategy area.
We have currently seven habitat banks within Buckinghamshire
which provide from which units of biodiversity gain
can be purchased and therefore there's no reason
to suppose that it would be outside the Buckinghamshire area.
It's a completely standard condition
and it would not amount to a reason for refusal
that you don't know where the biodiversity gain is going?
I understand all of what the officer has just said.
I remember those going through cabinet many years ago.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:03:15
The issue I simply had was,
not to say it was outside Buckinghamshire,
but there's a long distance from
Gerrard's Cross to Buckingham.
It could be a significant distance away,
and on that site there would be a net loss as such.
So I just put that out there.
I understand it may not be, on its own,
a sufficient reason for refusal.
and the
You raised the point of
sustainability, but I just want to clarify that for you.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:03:44
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 1:03:50
So in terms of sustainability, it would be a 12 -minute walk to
the
closest bus stop and about a 20 -minute walk to the town centre
and the train station from the application site.
Yes, so in the MPPF paragraph 1110, which is used in grave out assessment,
it does state development should be focused on locations which are sustainable
through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
So we would say that because you can walk, you can bus or you can get to the train
within an easy proximity, that it does offer a genuine choice of transport modes.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:04:35
So 20 minute walk. I'm not doubting, I'm just trying to be absolutely clear.
Ms. Lucy Dolan - 1:04:43
A 20 -minute walk is regarded as sustainable in terms of transport in this sort of location. It would be a
Councillor Roberts
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:04:49
Yeah, I am
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:04:52
Some sympathy over the tilted balance arguments because we sat through these arguments quite a number of times
And I do find
Although it might technically be correct in this case the fact that it's one dwelling
does seem to me to make the five -year housing land supply a bit of a red
herring argument. So I'm putting that one to one side. I should say I'm really
mostly concerned about the area of exceptional character and that assessment.
I have a lot of sympathy for the points that have been raised and find that
their concerns are entirely understandable
about the potential impact on the area.
I think visually the designs are visually in keeping
with similar properties in the area,
so that aspect seems to be okay.
So it's mostly a question of the size of the plots,
the size of the buildings on the plots, the frontage.
And there does seem to be some compromise,
but there are also some similarities with others and in the weighing up of that I
Do find that I find it hard to maintain an argument that that is substantial harm
so I think on that basis I I would not I'd be minded to
Support the officers recommendation
Castle hold I
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:06:29
I would dispute a 20 -minute walk being sustainable. We have at this committee talked about this
before and I have alone brought up the National Design Guide and the supplement to the National
Design Guide which refers to lengths of walks to bus stops and train stations and the NPPF
mentions not just the National Design Guide, but also the other national planning documentation that goes along with it.
And in that supplement that I brought up the last time, that is the only place that it really talks about the sustainability of the length of walks to bus stops and train stations.
I'm not at all convinced that this is a sustainable location actually. I
Think it's it's quite clearly not a sustainable location
that being said
It's also urban infill
There are a lot of other houses along this road as well which are in the same situation
and
Looking at the representations that have been received
There's nothing in those representations that give me great cause for rejecting this application.
I would agree with the officers about the gardens at the back not contributing to the street scene.
and so shouldn't be part of this discussion.
Regarding the tilted balance and the five -year supply,
yes, I mean, let's be honest,
it's not a meaningful contribution.
That being said, I don't think it's not a contribution,
especially when considering the fact that yes,
we only see two of these once every few months,
but if we think about them actually in the context of all of the other applications that we don't see,
together they do make some sort of serious contribution.
And otherwise the alternative is to go greenfield, go outside urban infill.
I don't think that's what we want to do either.
So I'm minded to support the application.
Thank you.
Councillor West.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:09:14
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Michael West - 1:09:17
I'm not familiar with this site.
In fact, until yesterday, I'd never been down this road at all.
When it comes to the character of the road, it is significant that the character changes.
When you first enter the road there are large houses with large frontages with
lots of soft landscaping in the front. They're quite secluded properties. Soon
that changes into large properties with open fronts, very grand houses,
beautifully designed houses, houses with wide frontages. But when you move further
down Camp Road you will find properties very similar to the ones that have been
proposed in this application.
In fact, just around the corner, there
is one such house which is almost
identical to one of the proposed buildings
that this applicant is making the application for.
So I don't actually see where there
is damage to the character of the area,
where it significantly changes the street scene.
It is already a mix, but it still has a style and it has a character and a wonderful one at that.
And as long as these houses are of sufficient quality, then I really don't see how we can oppose this application.
In fact, the building of one extra house on this plaque, the benefit of that significantly outweighs any harm that this application does.
and therefore I will be voting to support the application.
Do we have a proposal from the members?
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:11:15
I propose that we accept the officer's recommendation.
And Councillor Harris to second that.
So Councillor Roberts is proposing acceptance.
can I ask for a vote of those in favour of that recommendation?
One, two, three, four, five, six. Are you going to vote, Joanna?
I won't know. Those against?
Three. And I'm abstaining as the chair.
So that recommendation for approval has been carried.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:11:53
We'll now move on to the next item on the agenda.

6 PL/25/6461/FA - Walters Court, 811 Bath Road, Burnham

So it's Agenda Item 6, which is PL stroke 25, stroke 6461, stroke FA.
Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 1:12:18
I probably should have declared under item 3 that I'm the ward councillor for Burnham,
but I come to this committee with an open mind.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:12:26
So that's, the application is Walters Court, 811 Bath Road, Burnham.
them. Now can I ask Richard Reagan to introduce the item?
Mr Richard Regan - 1:12:43
Thank you, Chairman. By way of updates, just a couple of typing errors to make
members aware of within the committee report, just so it's clear. Paragraph 4 .8,
Second sentence, where the sentence says,
the proposal would be required to provide
50 % contribution towards affordable.
There's the word housing is missing
at the end of that sentence.
So contribution towards affordable housing.
And then paragraph 5 .8, the sentence,
first sentence at the end of the first sentence it refers to the title balance
is engaged that should read tilted balance. So this application seeks to
obtain permanent planning permission for a two -storied amountable building
comprising 12 apartments to provide residential accommodation to homeless
households together with associated car parking private and shared amenity space
landscaping and other ancillary works.
The officer recommendation is to defer and delegate
to the director of planning and environment
to grant conditional permission,
subject to conditions set out in this report
and any others which he considers appropriate
and the completion of a memorandum of understanding
or an acceptable planning obligation,
whichever is appropriate to secure the required mitigation for Burnham beaches SAC and
financial contribution towards health care
Or to refuse planning Commission if the memorandum of understanding or planning obligation cannot be completed
for the appropriate
reasons
So the development already exists having been constructed
And occupied following the grants of previous temporary planning permissions
So in terms of the scheme itself, the location, it's located south of the Bath Road in Burnham,
very close to the parish boundary of Taplow.
It lies opposite what you might know the Bishop Centre, which is a retail outlet.
That's the outline there in red.
So in terms of looking at the site itself,
you'll notice indicated here,
red access road from the Bath Road area of parking
to the north of the site,
and these are the buildings here themselves.
That plan shows, replicates what you can see
on the previous slide and shows the site layout.
In terms of internal layouts, 12 units,
comprising one and two bed units,
three one bed units and nine two bed units.
There's the elevations of the buildings, the building.
There's more 3D image of what the development appears like.
So it's considered that the proposals provide
an important contribution towards the council's
overall stock of substantive temporary accommodation,
providing a much needed type of accommodation
and playing an important role in enabling the council
to meet its statutory requirements
of providing housing for the homeless.
The proposals meet the exceptions
for when development in the Greenbelt is not inappropriate,
and it is considered that there are no policies
that protect or assets of particular importance
that provide a clear reason for refusing the development,
and there are no adverse effects of the proposal
that would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits.
As such, the application is recommended for approval in line with the recommendation as
set out in the committee reports.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Just a quick statement.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:17:25
As Councillor Hussain left the meeting during the statement that was being made, you may
continue to actually take part within the debate, but you will not be able to vote at
the end of it because you were not here throughout the whole of the period when it was being
presented, so I'm sorry about that. We don't have any speakers on this so we
should go straight to any technical questions that people have. Thank you
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:17:54
Councillor Roberts, then Councillor Teck. So I've got two questions, one probably
quite brief and the other might be a bit more involved. The first one, if you
could explain why this is coming forward for permanent application when
it's had temporary, what's the situation that's the need for it being a permanent
application at this stage? Okay so when when it was first applied for, so the
Mr Richard Regan - 1:18:24
lawful use of the site is employment generating and as part of policy CP 10 of
the core strategy it requires developments to demonstrate that the
the loss demonstrate that the loss of the employment space is proven acceptable
at that point that it was taught on a temporary permission to enable the
demonstrate that there wasn't a foreseeable future or demand for this
type of employment space so the temporary permission was was allowed to
enable that marketing exercise to be undertaken
whilst at the same time,
mostly the need for the housing could be catered for.
And following that period,
a further permission was, temporary permission was granted
under the same circumstances.
We had COVID during that period,
which aided the argument that further time was required
to address the loss of employment.
And now it's sought permanently on the basis
that there's a clear chronic need for this type of housing.
The owner is the council and strategically they feel
that this site is better served
as providing this type of accommodation
as opposed to the predicted need for this type of development
in the future, along with the case that the site
isn't significant in size.
So therefore the loss of this floor space
is tempered by the limited size of the site
balanced against the substantial need
for the type of housing.
Okay, thank you.
I would have addressed that to an applicant
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:20:31
if they were here, but I'll pose that to officers.
The second question I had was we've been much exercised about the golden rules previously
at this committee.
In this case, it's acknowledged that this application doesn't meet the golden rules,
so I was wondering if you can walk us through the rationale for setting those aside in this
case and what precedent that might give for future decisions that involve the golden rules?
So, yes, they're not set aside as such. They're acknowledged and it's acknowledged that they're
not meant and that's weighed in the balance, that's weighed against the scheme and that's
an approach that can be taken on any application.
So in this instance, it doesn't technically meet
the first criteria, the golden rules in terms
of affordable housing.
That's on the basis though that it doesn't meet
the definition of affordable housing as set out
in the MPPF, which is geared towards long -term
affordable housing units.
This is effectively affordable housing,
but it's short term sort of accommodation on licence.
But yes, technically, it doesn't meet definitions
set in MPF, so it's not technically meeting
that first criteria.
And the terms of open space, it doesn't meet that criteria,
because it's simply there's not enough room
to meet, provide the level of space that we would seek.
Again, that's tempered against if we were to require more space, that would therefore
mean that the level of accommodation would have to be reduced to make way for that open
space.
So that's been weighed against those arguments.
So it's acknowledged it doesn't meet those golden rules, but the weights that you would
give that harm is lessened by those factors
I've just discussed.
I just mentioned in terms of setting precedent
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:22:54
for offered development, the circumstances
relating to this application are quite unique.
So we're giving weight specifically
for this type of housing.
You wouldn't be able to apply the same level of weight
to open market housing.
So it wouldn't give, for example, encouragement
to somebody with a different type of units
for maybe flat open market units.
That would carry different weights
and that would therefore, in my opinion,
that wouldn't necessarily always carry the level of weight
to outweigh the harm, by reason of the lack of compliance
with the golden rules.
But certainly in this case,
there is a special case in officer's opinion.
Councillor Tett, then Councillor Harris.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:23:49
I'm normally a very strong defender of Greenbelt.
This particular site, however, I think given the need
for temporary accommodation by the Council,
I think there is a good case for this particular application
so I weigh that very heavily.
Am I right in having seen that this is the side
of the Bath Road Depot, I think it says somewhere in here?
Yes, it's previously developed land in that sense, yep.
It mentions, I think Richard mentioned
about employment displacement.
Does that mean there will be a requirement
for replacement employment land elsewhere,
potentially on other greenbelt land
as a result of this being permanently approved?
I have another question as well.
Mr Richard Regan - 1:24:33
So this won't result in a displacement.
This will mean that the employment floor space
on this site is lost.
I mean the policies that we have in terms of provision
of new employment generating floor space
is directed towards locations outside of the green belt.
So that's where we would seek to see you
additional floor space of such.
Just so I'm absolutely clear then,
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:25:06
approving this on a permanent basis
does not lead to a consequential pressure,
potentially on other greenbelt land
for replacement employment space.
That's correct.
Yes, thank you.
Lastly, I'm interested in the point that Mark raised
about the lack of affordable,
i .e. non -compliance with the golden rules,
which I thought were almost sacrosanct.
So is it I'm trying to understand the consequences of basically saying yeah, well, we don't care about the golden rules
In this particular case, I know that's not quite what you said. I'm exaggerating to make the point
Yeah, so if we approve an application that fails to meet the golden rules
Are there any consequences does it get referred to the government because it doesn't meet the golden rules or are we free?
to approve any application in the Green Belt that does not meet the golden rules
should we so decide. I have one last question. It's a decision that has to be
made in the round say it's one of the factors to take into account when making
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:26:08
a decision but there isn't a requirement specifically to tell the government if
you're not requiring the golden rules to be to be provided. In this
case, the way the golden rules is worded in the MPPF is quite complex in terms of the
implications for not complying with the golden rules. So for example, in paragraph 155 which
relates to grey belt, that's one of the requirements of meeting that exception to inappropriate
development in the green belt is compliance with the golden rules. Therefore, if you don't
comply with the golden rules, it doesn't meet that exception and would therefore the development
would be inappropriate in the green belt which would carry substantial weight against it.
In this case it's not relying on grey belt, it's relying on the fact that it's previously
developed land and that specific exception to inappropriateness in the green belt doesn't
require golden rules, it's just simply a paragraph in the MPPF which is required to be complied
with so it's almost a standalone, in this case, a standalone requirement which doesn't
have implications for the level of weight that has to apply to any development in the
green belt.
So it's a slightly lesser weight, if that makes sense, than if we were dealing with
a development for new housing in the grey belt because if it was new housing in the
belt not compliant on non -compliant golden wheels would make it inappropriate
development whereas in this case it doesn't so that does tamper the way
slightly quite significantly I think in terms of probably some of the point
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:28:00
which I'm sort of picking up is that if we went off as a committee giving lots
of permissions in grey belt land which didn't hit the golden rules probably
what we would face is a judicial review in certain senses that because that is
actually the penalty there isn't actually government penalty for us doing
that because we can give permissions but actually there could be people who would
say actually as a committee you have not been doing a proper job against the
stated rules and you flaunted them so that would achieve judicial review so
that's but it's ten chairman that's that's really helpful frankly we got
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:28:43
your your clarification on that so just so I am clear yeah I hope the rest of
committee clear were this to be put forward as a grey belt site yeah it
would have to meet the golden rules otherwise the officers would recommend
refusal were it approved by committee or by the officers it could face a judicial
review for not having met them given that it's being put forward as a
previously developed site rather than the grey belt site,
it doesn't have to meet the golden rules.
They're desirable, but not mandatory in that sense,
not essential from that point of view.
Therefore, there is no penalty whatsoever,
and no potential for a judicial review,
for example, by an aggrieved local resident
on the fact that it does not meet the golden rules
in this case, is that correct?
Almost.
I thought I paraphrased the gentleman. Clearly best.
Not far away, it's
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:29:45
essentially, it's just that
these implications
of not applying the golden wheels are different,
which that's correct.
In terms of if it was, as you said,
a grey belt site, then
the implications are that
the MPPF directs that you give
substantial weight any harm to the green
If it doesn't meet the exception to inappropriateness
So that would mean that you would have to you would have to have a much greater reason to grant permission
So the the weight that you would need to provide on the grey belt side on a grey belt site the base
Essentially in the green belt if it's inappropriateness is if it's inappropriate
You would only be able to grant permission if there were very special circumstances to outweigh the harm
So you would then happen to provide very special circumstances to outweigh the substantial harm resulting from
inappropriateness in the green belt. In this case
we're not, because we're not relying on grey belts, it's in terms of
inappropriateness it meets the exception because it's not resulting a substantial impact on the openness of the green belt and
therefore there isn't a requirement to pass that test in the green belt.
However, there is this separate, still separate requirement to meet the golden reels,
albeit the implications of, and the weight that you would give that is lesser as a result
of it not having that green belt.
Multiplayer, I suppose, is the term that you would need to apply.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:31:17
I have to be honest with you, I'm slightly losing this, but I am comforted by the Chairman's
clarification that actually there are no adverse consequences of agreeing this
and that we are not in any way open to judicial review by any aggrieved local
resident on the basis that we have not fully complied with the golden rules. I
just wanted to be clear that is the case that's being said. I think the key thing is
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:31:43
we're taking a balanced judgement on this particular area and we have weighed up
the information that we have and the particular need
that would outweigh the perfect situation
which we haven't quite got.
We've got quite a lot of the things here
and probably things like the MPPF
in terms of not counting this sort of accommodation
as homes, because it's the stepping stone
to make sure people are not homeless,
is something where we take your judgement saying this need is incredibly important.
I don't want to hog all the questions on this but I think hopefully all members
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:32:27
have gained from having a degree of clarity on that particular issue. My very
last question was on the contribution to infrastructure and there's mention of a
effectively I presume a section 106 agreement to provide money of just 11
and a half thousand pounds roughly to the local ICB.
Yep.
Is that an amount of money they have justified
based upon a particular submission to us?
I'm just wondering why, for example,
if they'd come along and said, give us 100 ,000 pounds,
could they have almost given us unlimited unsigned cheque
or rather signed cheque for us to fill in numbers on this?
How do how they justify that? So I've asked that question in a very poor way
but I'm just trying to understand the rationale for that number as opposed to any other.
They use a calculation that has been produced by Bucks Council
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:33:28
actually for many many years they actually got nothing because they never put anything in.
That's why I'm surprised.
So a calculation is there. There is a belief that the calculation is too low and it doesn't represent the south
but at the moment that is a calculation to say that covers as far as the ICB
I'm just surprised I'll be honest I'm surprised that eleven thousand pounds
no ticks the box as far as the ICB are concerned although I completely
acknowledged that historically they got nothing from 106 and the people have
already been there for many years in terms of it's been occupied yeah so this
is additional money okay thank you
Councillor Harris.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:34:13
As soon as questions, this has been brought to this committee because it's an application
by Bucks Council, as if it's an application from myself, an after -home committee.
It's already occupied.
It's on a brownfield site, effectively.
if we throw it out today it'll go to appeal anyway because presumably we want
to carry it forward. I just wonder what more there is really to to discuss if
would you like to make a recommendation?
I would accept the officers report.
From my perspective it's great to see something of this nature built in this area and to be so close to
supermarket so it is truly sustainable it's got public transport out the front
and it's got a seat back I wait there are the supermarkets they won't name it
which I think is great so for me I'm happy with the with the recommendation
of the officers would be happy to if Councillor Harris isn't gonna do it I'm
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:35:19
gonna propose we accept the officers recommendation okay can we have a
seconder for that Councillor West okay those in favour of the officers
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:42
recommendation. Thank you very much. Just all that's left for me to do is to state the date

7 Date of next meeting

of the next meeting is the 16th of June at 6 .30 and then again if there is a

8 Availability of Members attending Site Visits (if required)

site visit that's likely to happen on the 15th. We're not quite sure yet who
will be members of which committees and who will be chairing and doing things.
But again, big thank you for everybody for their time and we've all learnt
quite a lot I think in terms of some planning. I've certainly learnt a lot in
the last 10 minutes Mr. Chairman. Thanks to yourself and Mr. Robinson.
Thank you everybody.