West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 10 June 2026, 6:30pm

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 10th June 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr David Moore
Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Maz Hussain

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain

2 Appointment of Vice Chairman

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain

4 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Share this agenda point

Planning Applications

Share this agenda point

5 PL/25/4123/FA - Land East Of A404 and North Of Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7 1LU

Share this agenda point

Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Public Speaker
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Public Speaker
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Heather Smith
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Mohammed Ayub
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Maz Hussain

6 PL/26/01339/FA - Car Park, Tesco Stores, Longwick Road, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire

Share this agenda point

Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Gary Hall
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Maz Hussain

7 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

8 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:08

I'm Leslie Ashton. I'm the committee clerk for this evening's meeting in the absence

of a chairman and having not appointed a vice chairman as yet. The first item of business

for this evening will be the appointment of the election of a temporary chairman. So please

get a call for nominations.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:30

So I formally propose councillor Maz Hossain is the temporary chairman for the meeting in the absence of councillor Raja

And then I would look for a seconder

Thank you councillor Collingwood and councillor Moore has seconded. Are there any other nominations?

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:41

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:43

Thank you in the absence of any other nominations I declare councillor Maz Hossain as chairman for this meeting and invite him to

Take over

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:01:15

We've got another standout here and also another receptionist.

Commission area planning meeting tonight.

A couple of items just to housekeeping.

As you walk in the room, you will be recorded as a webcam.

So if you don't like getting recorded,

can you see the clock?

You can, might be organised as place we wouldn't get recorded.

On fire, as you, on back of the chamber,

there's access all side.

If it's, in case if it's a fire, follow us.

We walk across the car park on the left hand side.

Thank you.

Any apologies?

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:02:08

Thank you, Chairman. We received apologies from Councillor Raja and Councillor Moore is kindly substituting for him.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:15

I think Councillor Deo may well be late.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:19

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:21

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:26

I know she has a previous meeting that she it may well be this because of the

traffic and the rest she may end up being late so that's been noted

2 Appointment of Vice Chairman

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:33

we move to item three I are there any interest of anything with items two or

one

I went to the Medanad to see the game, how it sat, how they all saw it, and so just to

declare myself, so I went to one of them, one of the Medanads last week.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:08

What canopies look like, so I can understand what this might look like when we look at

our application, but like you had no affiliation with the applicant and therefore I still have

open mind in terms of the application and listen to the debate and then see how it plays. Thank you.

4 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:03:34

Thank you, Councillor. Next minute of last meeting was hold on Wednesday 18th of March

2026 and 20th of May 2026. The Councillors who were at that meeting, are you happy with it?

Agreed.

Planning Applications

5 PL/25/4123/FA - Land East Of A404 and North Of Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7 1LU

Now we move item 5, planning numbers PL254123FA, land east of A404 and north of Fieldhouse

land, Marlborough, Bakimshir.

I would like to have Heather Smith to take over.

Thank you, Councillor.

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:04:19

This is a planning application for full planning permission for the demolition of existing

dwelling house and construction of racket centre comprising paddle pickle

and tennis courts and associated clubhouse and

wellness centre together with pedestrian and vehicle access, parking, perimeter

fencing and gates and hard standing and landscaping works on land at east of the

A404 and north of Fieldhouse Lane in Marlowe. To begin with I just want to

cheque that members have got the update sheet there's an update to paragraph

4 .30 in the report, a slice of evidence of reason refusal number one, and just to

make you aware that there's been a submission of an additional statement

by the applicants agent which should have been attached to your update sheets.

As an introduction the application site

We'll just bring up the map for you.

Right, brilliant. Thank you.

The application site comprises an area of land approximately 1 .2 hectares in size,

which is situated on the northern side of Field House Lane in Marlowe,

between the existing Crown Plaza Hotel and the Waterski Lake.

At present, the only structure on the site is a rundown dwelling.

The remainder of the site is a relatively flat surface, later rough hogging.

Tall vegetated bunds surround the perimeters of the site, which largely screens it from

public view.

Enforcement action has recently taken place on the site to remove a large number of stored

vehicles.

This previous unauthorised use removes much of the grassed area that was previously on

the site.

The proposed development seeks to demolish the existing dwelling house and to create

a new paddle centre across the site.

This will include eight covered paddle courts which will be formed together with two uncovered

pickleball courts and an uncovered tennis court. A new clubhouse is proposed to be erected

towards the northern section of the site adjacent to the Crown Plaza Hotel. The vehicle access

point to the site will be relocated toward its eastern boundary with Crown Plaza. 64

off -street car parking spaces will be formed in the eastern section of the

site. This application has been called to committee by Councillor Collingwood on

the grounds that it's a greenbelt setting but has been used previously

and when it was suggested a site visit to the site would be helpful and I

understand that's taken place. Moving forward, so the slide you have in front

of you is the application site that's edged in red. You can see the Crown Plaza

to the left hand side and the open land at the waterskiy lake to the right.

That's a plan of the existing site. This is a plan showing the

immediate context of the site where it lies in relation to the Crown Plaza

hotel to the east. Marlou Rugby Club is centred down here to the south and the

small building of the Waterski Lake is centred to the to the west. This is an

application, sorry this is a plan of the existing site sections. This is a plan of

the proposed layout of the site. You'll see that the the entrance which is here

a new entrance of Iqur instance will come off Fieldhouse Lane which is closer

to the band at the border with the Crown Plaza that would lead into the site

providing car parking for 64 spaces. The large part of the centre of the site

will be taken up with the courts and the new clubhouse is located in this section

of the site down towards the existing Wartoski Lake. This is a plan of the

proposed sections of the site you can see on the edges here the bunding that

exists and will remain and then you see the the structures with the covered

paddle courts coming across the site I'm going down to the clubhouse on the

right -hand side. This is a plan showing the elevations the front and rear

elevations of the new clubhouse, the side elevations of the clubhouse, that's a

section through the buildings and these are sort of photographic photo montage

view of what the paddle courts and cannabis would look like. A similar one of

the clubhouse, that would be the rear of the clubhouse, another one of the rear of

clubhouse. This is a plan that's quite small, it's a general arrangement of the

site but it just indicates the amount of additional landscaping that would be

undertaken, or is this indicated to be undertaken around the bunding of the

sites and and in the centre of it. Moving to the photographs, this is a photograph

as you come in on the existing vehicle access and it is the bunding going

across the western boundary. It just shows you the height of the bunding.

Moving further into the site, that's the existing dwelling that's on the site.

You can see it's in a rundown position. This is facing towards the centre of the

site with the Crowne Plaza in the background and the existing dwelling on

the left -hand side. This is the front bund of the site and these photographs

were taken in December. We have some more that were taken a little bit later as

You can see the existing vegetation in the winter.

Obviously the building in the background is the Crowne Plaza.

Again, facing towards the Crowne Plaza.

The new vehicle access would be formed running along just

on the front boundary here, just before you get to the boundary

of the Crowne Plaza down here.

It's just another view across the site of the Crowne Plaza,

moving around the eastern boundary of the site.

This is an existing rear bund on the site. The site itself extends beyond the bund and

the proposal will be to take down this linear part of the bund to push through from where

the new club house will be erected beyond that.

A bit closer details of the Crown Plaza and its proximity to its own boundary. Again,

Again a similar picture of the bund.

Again the bund.

This is a photograph that was actually taken next door at the Crowne Plaza itself.

They have a rear patio area.

It was just really taken to show the proximity of the site boundary.

The site boundary you're looking for is coming through here.

This would be in approximate the position of the clubhouse.

And again, the boundary here with the vegetation, the other side of that would be where the

clubhouse would be formed.

That's a photograph of the existing water ski lake that you can see from Crowne Plaza.

You'd have a similar view from the new clubhouse.

This is an area on the other side of the bunding, part of this bunding would be removed where

the new clubhouse would actually sit.

These photographs were taken in May. This is a view outside the window of one of

the bedrooms in the Crowne Plaza Hotel. You can see the central part of the

site here and again another view across there.

Right, moving forward, we've provided a detailed report setting out the main constraints of

this site and the main considerations.

Primary consideration is that the application site is situated in the Greenbelt.

National Planning Policy framework states that Greenbelt has five purposes.

and they are actually listed at paragraph 5 .4 of the report. In accordance with

both national and local plan policies, development in the Greenbelt is

inappropriate and inappropriate development is by definition

harmful and should be refused unless there are very special circumstances.

However, in accordance with the MPPF and policy DM42 of the local plan, it

states that there are certain specified exemptions where development can be

considered to be acceptable and those most relevant to this application

include whether the land is forms of grey belts, whether it forms pre -developed

land, whether these are appropriate facilities for outdoor sports and

agro -recreation or whether it's considered to be limited in filling. I

why we don't think necessary apply starting with grey belt the applicant's

position that this is great about land and therefore the development should be

acceptable in principle however the office as part of the local plan the

Buckinghamshire a council has actually undertaken a review of all grey belt and

greenbelt within its authority boundary and it's produced a draught

grey belt assessment. In accordance with that review it looks at a much wider

area surrounding the site and according to that view it considers its goals

strongly against ground A of the purpose of the greenbelt which is to prevent

urban sprawl so that review suggests that the land itself is not grey belt.

When you look at the site itself which is also necessary we'd undertake a

similar exercise where you just set it against all the five purposes of the

greenbelt. We've also come to the conclusion that the site itself also

scores strongly against ground A which is prevention of urban sprawl. So the

officers have concluded that this site is not greybelt. Turning to

pre -developed land as you can see from photographs and plans the site only has

one dwelling on the land. At the recent hearing for the enforcement notice the

Council argued that only part of the land

that related to the curtilage of the dwelling,

which was the whole site,

only that would perhaps be pre -developed.

The remainder of the site is open.

So we don't consider that this is an acceptable development

of pre -developed land, which would then justify

development in the green belt.

Moving on to appropriate facilities

for outdoor sport and recreation.

There are two strands here.

First of all, an appropriate facility in the green belt

would actually need to be related to an outdoor sport and an outdoor recreation,

not an indoor one. We've taken the view that given the number of covers, the

amount of covers across the courts, that this doesn't actually form a traditional

or a specific outdoor sport. We've also taken the view that the extent of built

structures across the site together with the size of the clubhouse wouldn't be an

infilling the limiting infilling just doesn't meet the definition that's

actually provided in the Wycombe District Local Plan for limited infilling.

Moving then on to all of that makes the development inappropriate in the

Greenbelt and then accordance with the policies in the MPPF you then need to

look at whether or not there are any very special circumstances which would

then actually outweigh the harm and in this situation I've listed in the

report all of the very special circumstances that the applicant has

provided and I'm sure the applicant will speak in favour of those as well. We've

taken the view that those although they noted those very special circumstances

we don't consider that they're sufficient to actually outweigh the harm

to the green belt in this situation. In conclusion we must conclude that it's

inappropriate to belt in the green belt for which there are no very special

circumstances which help base the harm and therefore it's inappropriate. There's

been also concern raised regarding the general urbanisation of the proposal

sites which would actually be detrimental to the character of the area

which is predominantly rural and open but then with regards to all other issues

relating to contamination like amenity we considered that these have been

resolved or could be resolved through the use of planning conditions. So our

recommendation as offices as the planning applications refused.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:17:44

I think Heather we have got a couple of speaker on these items and every

speakers will have a three minute to speak so first I'd like to call Miss

Kristin Packer, you've got three minutes. My name is Kristin Paskins I grew up in

Public Speaker - 0:17:58

Marlowe attended Sir William Boile's grammar school and spent much of my

childhood playing tennis and cricket at Marlowe Sports Club.

Sport shaped my life and taught me the value of resilience,

friendship and community.

Because of those experiences, I care deeply about protecting

Marlowe and ensuring future generations have the same

opportunities to benefit from sport and the connexions it

creates. In 2022, my life changed dramatically when I lost

my mobility due to functional neurological disorder.

Within a week, I became a full -time wheelchair user and

faced one of the most difficult periods of my life. Adaptive sport however played

a crucial role in helping me rebuild my confidence, independence and sense of

purpose. Today I am the current Great Britain number one female wheelchair

paddle player. I compete internationally on the Inclusive Paddle Tour where

disabled and non -disabled athletes from around the world play together as

doubles partners, demonstrating the power of sport to break down barriers and

create genuine inclusion. As an LTA Paddle Ambassador I use my platform to

champion facilities and organisations that place accessibility and community at the centre

of what they do. Paddle Berkshire has already demonstrated this through its work at Paddle

Maidenhead. The club hosted the Inclusive Paddle Tour in September of last year and

will host it again on the 11th of July. This event was recognised by the Lawn Tennis Association

as the County Competition of the Year and was shortlisted as a National Finalist. Paddle

Berkshire also delivers sessions for local special educational needs schools and actively

supports disability sport. I have also seen firsthand the demand for paddle in

the Marlow area with many local residents already travelling regularly

to paddle Maidenhead to play including my own dad and brother. Based

on my experience competing internationally as a wheelchair athlete

the features proposed in this development are exactly what is needed

to create a facility that is genuinely accessible and inclusive rather than one

that simply meets minimum standards. The Clubhouse and Wellness Centre are

essential features of this proposal.

Accessible changing rooms, toilets, and recovery spaces

are fundamental for disabled athletes

to participate with dignity and independence.

The canopies are equally vital.

For wheelchair users, wet courts are a serious safety risk,

and slippery surfaces can make play dangerous or impossible.

The canopies will ensure the courts can be used safely

throughout the year.

This proposal is far more than a sports club.

It is an inclusive community hub

that will provide school sessions, junior camps and life -changing sporting opportunities

for people of all ages and abilities.

As someone whose life was shaped by sport in Marlowe and rebuilt through adaptive sport,

I strongly urge the Planning Committee to support this proposal and the lasting positive

impact it could have for the community and for the next generation of disabled athletes

in Buckinghamshire.

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:20:50

Thank you for your time. The next speaker will be Mr Bill Devison. You have three minutes

as well.

Public Speakers - 0:21:00

Good evening. If approved, this application will introduce a first -class racquet centre

in Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park with a focus on padel tennis, the fastest -growing

sport in the world. The applicant operates Maidenhead Padel, recently crowned best padel

centre in the UK, reflecting the work done with the community, local schools and for

its leading approach on accessibility, inclusive paddle.

The site at Fieldhouse Lane is private land,

which forms part of an allocation RT6

in the Country Park SPD, identified for development

for hotel and leisure uses intended to help draw

the community into and enjoy the Country Park.

Although within designated greenbelt,

the land has been worked and previously developed,

first for gravel extraction and then as a sewage works.

It was remediated when the Crown Plaza was built,

but the former caretaker's lodge remains,

now derelict as you would have seen on your site visit. If approved the

redundant site will be reimagined as a community sports club, complementing

other uses in the vicinity including the adjacent rugby club and aligned with the

aims of the Country Park policy RUR4. The proposal will bring considerable

environmental, economic and social benefits that together make a compelling

argument, very special circumstances which we consider justify approval in

the greenbelt in this case. In terms of the environment the application proposes

comprehensive new planting, enhancing the existing landscape

buns with about 150 trees to increase the canopy and mitigate

visual impact and protect amenity of neighbouring uses. It will

deliver a biodiversity net gain, and through providing a local

facility, it will reduce the current need for Marlow residents

and employees to travel further afield to play paddle in

Maidenhead or Hazelmere. It will generate new employment

opportunities in construction and ongoing operation, and

importantly, it will provide additional sporting facilities

Adjacent and available for workers at Globe Business Park helping attract and retain companies in Marlowe

Promoting positive physical and mental health for employees and encouraging use of the country park

the Business Improvement District at Globe and the businesses it represents have been vocal supporters of the project from the start as

Have many in the local community in terms of social benefits the proposal scores very strongly

encouraging and facilitating health and well -being for all for its outreach programmes with education and as a community hub attracting and raising awareness of the

wider country park. As you heard from Kristin, the covered courts and design of the clubhouse

are essential to be accessible and meet the requirements of all parts of the community,

a fundamental objective of the applicant, and a further very special circumstance.

All technical matters have been addressed, resulting in no concerns from any of the statutory

consultees relating to highways, drainage, ecology, or environment. In the overall planning

balance, therefore, the application is for a suitable sporting use in this sustainable

location it will deliver an exemplar racket centre that can be used by all

throughout the year helping to address the current shortfall of paddle courts

as recognised by the LTA these matters all comprise very special circumstances

that we consider warrant approval for this exciting and exemplar project and I

hope you can all agree thank you I thank you

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:23:57

Members, do you have any question to ask them?

Good evening.

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:24:09

My question is, as I understand it, that there are likely to be 11 courts built on this site,

and it seems eight are due to be covered and three are likely to be uncovered.

Why is it not possible for more of them to be uncovered?

The intention is to meet the requirements of the need for paddle.

Public Speaker - 0:24:36

We are putting the investment to put the courts in.

The more paddle courts are covered, the more they will be able to be used, whatever the

weather throughout the year.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:24:54

the

Public Speaker - 0:24:56

international tournament, and this is

the inclusive paddle tour coming to the UK last September, was

the very first international paddle tournament in the UK. It

was a disability tournament.

And again, we have this on the 11th of July.

Now, we have players from all around the world, all different

countries, mostly amputees and

and wheelchair players, it's not safe for them to play on courts that aren't covered

if we have any kind of rain. And if you can imagine, all the courts are going to be full

that day. And we want to have more tournaments like this. We're looking to doing more and

more regional tournaments within the UK as well as the international ones, and we can

only do that if we have facilities that are fully accessible. And that's the justification

for these covers.

Thank you.

Councillor Alex Gallingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:25:40

Thank you, Chairman.

Just talking about RT6 and RUR4, can you just talk me through, because the way that the

officers have written it, it doesn't apply.

So what justification did you think in your mind, particularly on RT6?

I think the RUR4 does apply, but I don't think the RT6 necessarily applies.

I just want to understand your dynamic of how you've got a different perspective from

the offices if that makes sense.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:26:11

The RT6 is actually a site allocation and the boundary of that site allocation incorporates

both the Crowne Plaza Hotel and this application site.

If you look carefully at it, the boundary of it and I think the officers just missed

that as just assumed that it just relates to the Crowne Plaza but in fact it doesn't.

I'll cancel out Mark Turner.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:26:38

Thank you, Chairman. Can I just ask how many courts does the Maidenhead site have and how many of them are covered?

Public Speaker - 0:26:46

So currently Maidenhead has seven courts, six of those are covered.

Any other members?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:26:53

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:27:00

Yeah, so I'm interested in the idea of outdoor sport.

Is there, considering it's considered an indoor sport, have you got any comments to make on

the consideration that we've been given that it's an indoor sport with the canopies?

Public Speaker - 0:27:15

So Paddle actually, for a bit of history, started off in Mexico and then moved to Spain.

And as you can imagine, both of those countries are very, very hot.

So actually, most of the courts are actually outdoors.

Now in the UK, because so many businesses are converting

kind of old office buildings and things like that into more like the kind of warehouses.

And I've been into them that they're a bit soulless, you know, being outdoors for me

and for so many people is so important just for health, well -being, being outside, fresh air.

And that's why that was always the plan with Paddle Maidenhead and ultimately Paddle Marlowe as well.

Can I just add to that as well?

Putting a canopy on a paddle court does not, in my view, make it an indoor facility.

It still has open sides around that.

And also canopies in sporting uses in Greenbelt planning appeals have been found to be essential

facilities that are not inappropriate because they do maximise the ability to deliver sporting

uses.

Councillor Allam.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:28:19

Just a question following on from that.

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:28:22

It wasn't clear to me from the beginning

that even the covered courts are actually open from the side.

In that case, how are you avoiding

it being slippery because nobody can control

the direction of the rain?

Public Speaker - 0:28:39

Most of the signs of paddle courts are glass walls.

They only have a cage at the actual entrance point,

so there wouldn't be much rain that came in.

and it would have to be pretty inclement weather,

horizontal rain to be affected in that way.

Councillor Turner.

Experience from playing on paddle courts,

I mean internationally, that rain is not an issue

provided you have a cover over the top

as a wheelchair player.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:29:09

Can I just ask, is the Maidenhead paddle court,

was that in Greenbelt?

Yes it is.

Public Speaker - 0:29:13

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:29:16

I think for the speakers now move on to ask any technical questions to our fiscal members.

Councillor Manali.

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:29:25

Thank you, Chairman.

As I understand the recommendation, it seems to suggest that you can build on Greenbelt

if it preserves the openness of the Green Belt, or if they are very special circumstances.

How do we define preserves the openness? Is there any statutory guidance on the

interpretation of that? And also very special circumstances. It does appear that the hurdles

quite high. But is it a matter of interpretation for us or is there some guidance on it?

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:30:09

To answer your first question, the preservation of the openness goes back to the five purposes

of the green belt and where any development would actually have an impact on any one of

those five purposes.

Other than that, it comes down to a judgement that a local planning authority is required

to make as to whether or not a development has an impact on openness.

and that each then each and every case would actually be have to consider it on

its own merits and you take the view of what was on the site at the time what

the development would be similarly with very special circumstances it's a matter

of judgement there's no particular case or the very special circumstances there's

no prescribed list or an end of the list it would be down to this planning

committee to consider whether or not any of the circumstances that have been put

forward by the applicant are special enough to actually outweigh any harm you

might identify to the green belt.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:11

Councillor Collingwood. Thank you chairman. Back to my point I posed to the

applicant. I'm surprised the officers have come up with the answer they came

up with because having just reread the history of the site, yes it's

gravel extraction which technically you can have and it then gets put back but it physically has

been the sewage works and has been a refuse so then has been previously developed so I am

rather surprised that wasn't flagged to us as a committee because that then suggests actually

designation is different as it is now I'm not happy but I would love to see the detail behind

the actual assessment was given and which officers did the assessment because I'm not sure they actually suggested desktop exercise

They probably come out with the wrong answer

If they've actually physically gone on site and actually did the history which is in our own archives

From Wiccan District Council, you'll find actually it was the search works and it was the refuse tip which is previously developed

So a lot of clarification on that

But then after that

I'll come back with different point but I'll let other speakers at that point but

what about clarification first because I'm not happy and not content

Mr Ray Martin - 0:32:37

I think the crucial thing is you said if you delve into the archives

if you're doing a Greenbelt assessment, Graybelt assessment the officers should do that

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:32:44

Mr Ray Martin - 0:32:47

well you're talking about two different things in terms of Graybelt and whether

as previously developed land, they're not the same thing at all.

But nobody's denying the fact that this was used as part of a sewage site many, many,

many years ago, and it was a long, long time ago.

And then the land was restored and it became designated as part of the country park as

a designated open site.

So that chapter in its history is long gone and therefore it really could not be used

as this was previously developed because how far back do you want to go?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:33:26

I grew up there, played there and actually in both the refugee site and the Jewish search

works.

There we are.

Mr Ray Martin - 0:33:32

Well that's as maybe but it was incorporated into a reclamation scheme that became part

of the country park.

So I would strongly suggest that the argument in terms of previously developed land is a very very weak one

Sorry, but that's just the way it is

Councillor Montana

Thank You chairman

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:34:01

I'm going along a similar vein on two things. The first thing is that we actually know that

The side is gonna find a piece of paper work here

There was a council decision on Little Marlowe Country Park which basically says the lack

of formal designation for Little Marlowe Country Parks is noted and that it be agreed not to

pursue formal designation to regularise the status of the whole area allocated in Wickham

Local Plan RUR4 as a country park.

And basically, so in theory, that part isn't actually country parks, even though it is in RUR4,

we've actually more or less said in this particular officer recommendation cabinet report that it's going to be taken out.

So that was the first thing. The second thing, I think, is the actual, the green belt itself,

the quality of the green belt in perspective of not the whole of the country parks application

with A and B and D, but so much as this particular site.

And I think what we have to be mindful of is the fact that in the north of it you've

effectively got the lake which forms a boundary. To the east of it you've got

Crowne Plaza Hotel which really is a very large development and below you

have the railway line which demarcates that and then to the left you have the

A404. So I can't see it being an effective means of preventing sprawl

because the sprawl is already there in terms of the fact we've got the Crowne

Plaza there's a road that goes along it there's the Henley Rugby Club just below

a little bit below that there's is it called River Down Lane or something

where there's development down there albeit a little bit further way down to

the river and then the A404 I personally can't see it being really that

particular part of the site I agree further up bound by the A404 I agree

that has is very good as a boundary but I think that that this particular part

is actually subservient to the Crowne Plaza.

And for me, it doesn't serve great greenbelt purposes.

I'm not saying it's greybelt, but what I'm saying is I don't think it is a great thing

that specifically prevents sprawl.

I think the sprawl is there.

And the other thing is, I've just...

I've printed off the site allocation,

and this was from the previous...

This was from the planning in whenever it was 80,

I think the first one was 88 or something,

the 200 room hotel.

So it's not a long, long time ago

from the previous applications.

We're not talking about 50 years or something.

I still remember the 80s.

So I do feel that actually the format here,

which includes the white, you can see the white cottage here

and all the built up area around here.

I mean, I do tend to agree that it is quite

already developed and to me, I can't see the argument

for the green belt being a strong preventer

of development there.

But I'd like to hear your views.

No, I think turning to the first one,

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:37:37

which is the strong development,

development. I think we have to accept obviously that the Crown Plaza Hotel is

there, that is a substantial development, but realistically it's the only major

large substantial development that there is there. The boundary is quite a

hard physical boundary from the settlement which is the A404 and that

actually has prevented development jumping the 404.

The Rugby Club itself is predominantly open, there's got several pitches down

that leads down to the river, and the clubhouse itself is the only development

that's there apart from the car park, but that's actually quite modest and quite

small. So I'm not sure that you could argue that that's actually urbanised. The

area of Greenbelt itself is quite a wide one, you've got to consider that itself,

and if you continue to allow development, even small pockets of it,

so that you could allow a development here and say okay that's fine it has no

harm to Greenbelt, then it actually threatens the site next door and suddenly

you've got a ribbon of development running all the way along Fieldhouse

because that argument would then equally apply to anything else that you've moving

forward and I think that's really where we're coming from. What we're trying to

do, we've argued that it in terms of the purposes of the greenbelt this

goes strongly against ground A which is to stop urban sprawl and that's the

urban sprawl is where large built -up settlements are sprawling outwards. The

404 itself is that it's the hard physical boundary which will prevent

development in that area. That's why we consider it can't be grey belt because

it scores strongly against ground A. You mentioned the previous plan there where

it might have been allocated an RT6, we didn't ignore it, we were quite aware of it,

but what it did do, it formed part of an SPD, in full part of the local plan,

what's happened is since then we've had two successive local plans and

what we're having to do, we need to work on the current local plan which is

adopted and the adopted local policies are RUR4 and we all know that various

different policies as they change over time they might either supersede or

take over from previous policies that might be there so there's still parts of

the SBD that will probably still be relevant but we've got an up -to -date

policy that doesn't allocate this site for any form of development in itself so

and that's the policy that you don't have to judge this application on.

Mr Ray Martin - 0:40:03

Don't take this the wrong way Mr. Turner, I remember the 80s as well but in

planning terms for decades is a long time so that's that was the point I was

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:40:18

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:40:22

making it's 40 years on since then thank you so I noticed it was said that this

was become stronger stronger Greenbelt in the draught local plan so I'm wondering

if a draught supersedes the agreed one that currently stands.

For me, I'm also intrigued by this – sorry, I'm a little rustling.

So the other thing I wanted to ask is in terms of it being considered indoor, as has been

said, if it was built in Maidenhead as Greenbelt under the idea that it was considered outdoor,

There seems to be a point of contention where there's no direct line of this is definitely indoor and I think that looking through the documents

there is an exception for sports if they're considered to be outdoor.

There is, the majority of the land looks to me like it's outdoor if you take that into account with the canopies.

Also the fact that it means that it's more inclusive I would say would make it a more special need to have more inclusive sports

because to me that's something we should be delivering.

And the bit about that it was given permission

to be a golfing ranger with floodlights,

and also the fact that it was considered

as part of the Crown Plaza development thing some time

ago, for me it feels like there's

a lot more sort of subjective nature than a straight no.

and and I'm I can see why the canopy could be considered either way but for

me if it makes it accessible and it makes it safe and it's there for no

other purpose I I'd be really intrigued to know what that wouldn't be a special

exemption from being able to put it on Greenbelt thank you do you want to go

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:42:25

through that. To answer your first point about the draught and the local plan, what

we referred to was a draught assessment on Greenbelt, Greybelt that has been

undertaken as part of the draught local, Buckinghamshire draught

local plan that's been moving forward. The draught assessment itself has been

published so it gives some weight, it gives us an indication as to how we'd be

Thinking in terms of weights at the moment the current adopted local plan takes full weight

That's the Wicom district local plan the draught Buckinghamshire local plan takes very limited weight because it's only regulation 18

It's not good to regulation 19 something published yet. So any policy in that plan is of limited rate

Mr Ray Martin - 0:43:12

Sorry just to add to the green belt grey belt local plan status thing

You said about the new local plan giving the green belt greater significance

Green belt given greater significance. That's not the case at all

This is designated green belt land and the assessment that's being undertaken is in relation to a

new policy introduced by government which said in some circumstances

circumstances we can afford less protection to that designated green belt by virtue of the grey belt

Consideration so the grey belt considerations something which is coming new

Which has required us as a council to review all of our green belt land

And decide whether it falls into that new category or not. It doesn't change the status of this land

or the

The outcome of that finding doesn't add weight to the green belt consideration. It's already green belt

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:44:09

Okay, sorry, it was just in response to I thought I heard that because the draught

local plan secures it as a important part I just wanted to make it clear that

that doesn't set a precedence over what's currently there because that's

that's what I heard being said and just in regarding the special exemption for

sports and the covering being something that's acceptable in Greenbelt in other

areas is that something that the planning committee can take as objective

and rather than a black and white it's in door because it's got canopies? Well I

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:44:47

think every local planning authority has the duty to make its own decisions based

on what it considers it has to make a decision in terms of the harm to the

Greenbelt impact on the Greenbelt on case by case basis I don't know the

reasons why what was on the site previously whether or not they

considered whether the right WIS officers have taken a view looking at

what's been presented to us. It's not just canopies on the site,

the courts themselves, the paddle courts also have walls and although some of

them are mesh, they are actually also glass walls as well. So it's a structure

because my understanding is that the paddle ball can bounce off the walls and

that's what that's been shown in the submissions, is that they do have

size and canopies at the top as well.

So, hence the reason we've taken the VA

that they're not entirely outdoor sport.

I'd like to just add there actually.

Sorry madam, sorry you can't come in.

This is the member time now, sorry.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:42

Can I just add to that?

If you look at the report in paragraph 419,

Mr Ray Martin - 0:45:49

it does explain about one of the exceptions

to the presumption against inappropriate development

in the Greenbelt is for outdoor sport and recreation.

But it goes on to explain where those facilities preserve

the openness of the Greenbelt and do not conflict

with the purposes of including land within it.

So it's not just it's outdoor, it's okay,

it's indoor, it's unacceptable.

You've got to look at the impact on the openness.

And what we're saying is if you look at these facilities

on the plans in front of you there's enough built form there to erode the

openness of the green belt and that's why we're right raising an objection I

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:46:36

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:46:39

think we've moved on to debate have we yeah that's the first question then you

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:46:45

can come back to the members who's on the side with it the other day first I'm

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:46:50

I'm glad Council Collingwood brought this to committee.

With all application, ultimately, you need a layman's view,

although the MPPF is there for guidance

and to provide us with a set of rules,

ultimately it's for us to take these things forward.

As far as this being an outside court,

I would challenge anyone to stand in a pair of shorts

on one of those courts in December

and tell me they couldn't feel as though they're outside.

Having played squash for years and years and years,

It's a stuffy sport doesn't matter how big the fans are

This has free moving air through the through the canopies over the top of the mesh or glass walls as as are

And makes it very much an outside area. I think that the

Positioning of the clubhouse is very sympathetic to the whole development the fact that there's a proviso for

Overlooking the lake it opens up. What is green belt and what is actually worth looking at?

I wouldn't say that I would take someone on a date to this particular site as it stands

now and as Greenbelt I think it offers absolutely nothing to the openness.

It's extremely urban.

There's the existing car park for the Crowne Plaza just under the fly over as you come

into the road.

You then go along past a little bit of open land which you can't see because it's all

boarded off and then you come to this site and then you come to the Crowne Plaza.

So I think in those terms, I find it very strange that this doesn't fulfil the criteria

of minimum of Greyfield site.

Bucks traditionally is the home of the Paralympics.

Having worked with Wheelchair, the charity, I must commend you on your ability and your

achievements.

I certainly wouldn't play wheelchair rugby, which is twice as rough as the real game.

But these people are out there, they're doing sport,

we want to give them as much inclusion as we possibly can

and this facility offers all of that.

I think that in terms of openness,

between the covered areas are merely there as covers.

If we were looking at a car park at a new supermarket,

we'd be demanding we put solar panels on the roof now

because that seems to be the want.

So I don't think the canopies really have a great deal

of difference. For me, I'd be minded to go against the officer's recommendation and approve

this application, but we need to work out what those special requirements are. And I

might have to look to you for a bit of help with that, Rave, but I will work with my colleagues

here. If anyone has anything to add to that?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:49:35

Councillor, you.

This is a hard one.

Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:49:40

Because one side, as Mark said, you go Crown Plaza, other side you go industrial state,

in between you only acre and a half left.

So I think most, most probably it will be better we make, get use of it.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:50:02

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:50:05

Thank you, Chairman. So it seems to me, again, what it really boils down to this application

is whether we meet two tests. One is whether this plan preserves the openness of the Green

belt or if they are very special circumstances.

Now I was scruffing about, apologies,

because I was trying to get to this document.

Because this gives you a real idea of the developments that

are taking place and the use of this site.

And if you look at this from a neutral perspective,

it does appear to be a no redevelopment.

You can see where the covered panels are.

and it seems that a significant proportion of the actual development is going to be in a building form.

So I can see the force of the argument therefore that it doesn't preserve the openness of the green belt.

That said, there is still the option of establishing very special circumstances

and I can see the benefits of this to the community, to a potentially derelict site,

We've heard about the opportunities that it will have, both internationally and nationally,

for sports to be played.

It's got a very, appears to have a lovely area.

The area around it is also developed, undeveloped, countryside.

it seems to me that it's going to be a great addition to the area,

well in all senses really, so it's really an assessment I guess,

in my view, as to whether they are those very special circumstances. Thank you.

Councillor David. Thank you, Chairman. I want to fully share the views shared by my colleagues

Cllr David Moore - 0:52:07

here today.

It was really touching to hear some of the storeys

behind this application.

But ultimately we have to decide applications

on material grounds.

And I'm quite perplexed how this site is being considered

by the officers as not grey belt.

I think more weight should have been given

to the derelict house, the made ground,

the former gravel sewage use, the bunding.

But regardless of that, I think there are a number

of very special circumstances that are met.

that we should be voting in support that this application

should be approved.

Thank you.

Councillor Mark Turner.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:52:48

Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:51

Yes, I'd just like to go and say the same things.

I think that accessibility of the green belt is important

and I also think that it's already had planning permission

for sporting use in 1994 with a golf club or rather a golf driving range. Golf driving

ranges in general, the bit that you actually perform the golf driving is under cover. Invariably

you hit out into an open area but golf driving ranges generally are under cover. So I have

a feeling that there is already an existing planning permission that has gone through

for a golf driving range under cover and I don't see that this is a great deal of difference.

I also think that in terms of openness, there's a bundle all the way around it.

There's adequate landscaping that's been planned.

I think that the applicant provided a visual test.

So personally, I'd agree and think that it should be approved.

Councillor Haynes.

I agree.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:54:03

I would agree that it should be approved.

I do think it's an exception for outdoor sport.

I don't consider the canopies to make it fully indoor,

so I think there is some subjectivity there.

Given that the business has been a provable success

in Maidenhead, I would argue that

That means you have something, a proper solid offering that's been proven to work that isn't

speculative.

And to me, Marlow is somewhere.

That bit there is the prime area to do it.

I think if you make that green belt that it has to be an entirely open sport within those

structures at all, that that won't happen.

and that is an area that could slide into becoming derelict.

Because with today's prices and all the environmental things

that have been added on anyway if it's passed,

I think you'd struggle to get a local football team

start up there.

I think you'd struggle to get a lot of sports set up there.

And so for the sake of the fact that also I really

like the fact that it's really accessible

and it's been such a successful sport in that area.

I'm prepared to say that's an outdoor sport if there's gonna be any question

about it and take it on board so I would support

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:55:37

Councillor Collingwood. Thank you chairman. In terms of the opennessness the

current site is derelict and it has buns all the way around it so there is no

openness in terms of the green belt whatsoever because it's not accessible

to anybody in the green belt nobody actually can see it within the green

By doing what they're going to do with the taking the bunds down and the

increasing trees and the rest of it actually we enhancement to the green

belts not a no harm to green but actually we improve and enhancing that

piece particularly then go out through to the lake piece actually it makes makes

the actual green belt actually a far better proposal. Now I feel like I don't

agree with that well that's fine but ultimately I like Councillor Arthur

Arthur Hewett's view is that it is outdoors, it is fully, again, if you're going to be doing,

as it was today, pouring rain, if someone's going to be playing on those pelo courts,

they will know it's an outdoor court, I can tell you, even the fact that they'll be probably very

wet as well, in fact, as they played today. By doing it as a community hub, it also then

provides a local and regional and national demand there that actually makes it a sport for all

place. I think there are the special circumstances that actually make it reason as to why you would

say yes actually in this circumstance actually this particular application actually would meet

the special circumstances because actually it's not just the community club, including the community

club that would be for Marlowe, but actually most of the Marlowe people actually play in

Mainnet already, I know that because a lot of my people, my residents have told me that,

but actually it would improve in terms of lack of congestion because they're driving to Mainnet

at the moment anyway, so that you wouldn't need to be driving.

But also, it provides a both local, regional,

and national hub, which goes back to when we built

Handy Cross hub, that was the whole point behind it.

It was inclusive to all, but it was both a community hub,

a regional and national hub for both swimming

and for badminton and the rest.

When we built our own Fort Steer at Handy Cross,

and that was the whole point.

So to me, the same principle applies to this application,

because they're doing the same ethos in terms of where

where we are going with this particular application

for this particular sport.

Therefore that makes you the very special circumstances.

But I would still argue, even then,

the openness actually improves and enhances the green belt.

The officers may not like that,

but I still think we should be articulating this.

This is a massive improvement on a derelict site

that actually has been sitting there for 20 years,

been wasted, if that makes sense.

But I've got others who want to do that,

but I would formally propose

that we do approve this application, Chairman.

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:58:09

Thank You can a councillor West please I'll be brief he's been waiting for a

Cllr Michael West - 0:58:14

little while not sorry brief as a country boy I never expected to vote for

any development in the green belt whatsoever for me it this ticks the

boxes of an outdoor sport right it takes all the boxes for being spent for

special needs, special purposes, and not only that, the key phrase for me is it preserves

the openness of the greenbelt. There is no openness to preserve here. This is undoubtedly

an improvement on what already exists. Thank you.

Councillor Mark will be the last speaker. Thank you, Chairman. I think the last thing

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:58:58

I was just going to mention was the fact that and I appreciate that different county councils and councils have different

Ideas and different plans and so forth, but I still think that if there's seven courts

Covered in Greenbelt in Maidenhead. There is there must be some sort of precedent there as well. Thank you. I

Thank You councillors

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:17

As always did the last week look into it. We have to do that search on it

is only one we're going to make it so purple you can't book it.

I know the law community from Wickham they've got to drive to London to go to play.

Beyond the city is one of them sport with and this place where we've done the side visit

they've been left there for years and I think this will be good for the community

and it will be bring the sport in bring the international teams in but I will.

Okay.

Mr Ray Martin - 0:59:54

Sorry, Councillor Harris said he may be asking me

to help with the reasoning.

Can I just try and sum up?

I've listened very carefully to the debate.

There's been a lot of technical talk about Greybelt,

what's previously developed land,

what's appropriate in the Greenbelt,

what's not appropriate in the Greenbelt.

But from the debate, it's very clear to me

whether or not you accept the officers explanation

of why we think this is an inappropriate development

in the green belt, it is entirely open to the committee

to find in favour of this development

because they think there are benefits

that outweigh the harm that the officers have identified.

You have a whole host of propositions in terms of what those very special circumstances may be that have been put forward by the applicant.

You've debated lots of them.

So I'm going to pick a few.

I'm not going to guide you in terms of what I think should be and shouldn't be included because you're considering this in the round.

But if you think the benefits arising from this outweigh the harm,

then of course you can approve this application.

We've been talking about things like the wellbeing

and the accessibility for all and the inclusion

and the benefits in terms of access to the countryside,

the jobs that are being provided.

There's lots there for you to say, actually,

because of the nature of this specific application,

whilst we acknowledge that it's in the Green Belt, actually what we're getting, we are

prepared to accept, not withstand the fact it's in the Green Belt. So that's your prerogative.

I'll give it a try then. I think the benefits of the...

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:01:52

Can we move on on this please? I think we had a debate on and I think we should have

a voting on this now.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:01:58

is I think we have to put the proposal forward as to why that's why I was asking

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:02:03

actually can I propose in a second now then we can move on

so I think the idea chairman is that see myself and councillor Harris will

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:14

propose and second and give the relevant suitable reasons as to why we think

there are special circumstances why it should be approved the first thing that

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:02:22

in in terms of opening up this piece of land it'll provide an opportunity for a

of people to access a piece of a piece of Marlowe that the way it's seen before

it is constricted on all sides bar one in terms of expansion and therefore it's

entirely controlled development so we're not going to see continued sprawl from

the site it is set within a primary primarily urbanised area with the

existing Crowne Plaza expansion car park and Crowne Plaza to the other end and

and the road that services the two.

It is a destination for anyone coming by car,

so it's not lots of vehicle movements

other than to go to this one particular venue.

I think beyond that, we then have an inclusive site

which offers opportunity of access to all.

And with the quality of the development

that's gonna take place here,

we have something which will be a shining star

within

Buckinghamshire as a place of excellence

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:03:33

It adds to those because I think again there are certain bits we have to include and I think one of the first points is

Actually, the site is a really sustainable site. You can walk from the train station

You can walk from the the industrial estate you can walk from the town

In addition to being the car parks as well. So it actually is a fundamentally is a sustainable location

which is unusual in Marlowe because most of them are so landlocked they have no

sustainability piece. Obviously it does physically make sure that we meet the

significant demand within the local area. It will reduce congestion in the local

area. As you've rightly said, I checked as well, there's no

availability so either you go to London and or elsewhere to get to play the

paddle. So it's either Canary Wharf or elsewhere right which is not

not sustainable in any way shape or form. There is public support both through the local residents

and the community but to me it's about promoting the school work with the schools and the physical

and mental health and well -being and exercise for all and inclusivity for all because I think that's

the key piece is that the point is it's going to be purpose -built so it is accessible to all,

particularly the work that Councillor Harris has done with the Paralympic team previously.

I think it will be a community hub, but it is then going to become more of a regional national centre, if that makes sense.

So again, it's not just if it was one panel of court you go, why would you bother?

The fact is going to be a proper basis that let me know seven, this has 11.

This will become the premium, the premier location for national and international locations, if that makes sense.

I think in addition there will be additional economic benefits through

construction, ongoing employment opportunities and the rest and in terms

of the green belt itself it will improve and enhance where we are. Where they've

got the planting plan I know that they obviously I think have got a bunch of

conditions that would require that so I think by adding all the additional

conditions in which I think includes potentially a contribution to the

country park the RUR4 piece because that's what's being referenced by the

I think by those additional benefits to the wider Country Park as well. I think that then actually makes

Cumulatively what Chancellor Harris has said and when I've said together, I think cumulative it that gives you your special circumstances to why?

as cancer West but welcome said as a country boy

Actually makes you go actually this is one reason you can actually accept it on the special circumstances in the green belt

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:05:59

Thank You chairman. Thank you. Can't

Who's in the favour of it? Can you raise a hand please?

I was formally proposing, Chair.

Sorry, Councillor, you seconded it.

I propose that the Councillor have a second advice or whatever it is.

Thank you. Who's in the favour?

Proposing approval.

Sorry, just hold on a second.

Sorry, just to be clear, if you're going to vote on it, in terms of the proposal to allow

the application, just need to make it clear and tidy it up with you, that that would be

minded to approve and that you would be delegating the authority to officers to

impose the conditions that are necessary. So we would do with them delegate

normally with officers in consultation with Chairman and Vice

Chairman with obviously Chairman incapacitated if that's your wish. If it needs to be

comes back or whatever this as you do on student sites that's what happens with

consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman if any nuances come along but

But in principle that is mainly to approve subject to you doing all the details based on the yes

That's what conditions already outline plus the bit about the IOR for and the contribution. That's also thank you

Hollywood

Can you raise your hand, please?

Unanimous chairman so that's approved. Yeah. Thank you. We agree on that. So

6 PL/26/01339/FA - Car Park, Tesco Stores, Longwick Road, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:07:51

We move on to Item 6, car park, Tesco storey, Longwood Road, Prince Christopher, and I'll

I'll hand it up to Heather.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:08:26

Thank you, Councillor.

Item number six is the proposals for installation

of a Timpson key cutting kiosk to a hard standing adjacent to the Tesco Superstore

at Longwick Road, Princess Risborough. As members note that there's an update sheet,

one additional representation has been received since the report was prepared.

It raises no further grounds of objection and there's an alteration to section five of the

report to include the Human Rights Act and Equalities Act. The application site is situated

within the curtsey of the existing Tesco store in Prince's Risborough.

The site is within the Prince's Risborough town centre boundary, primary shopping area

and the Prince's Risborough conservation area.

It is proposed to erect a retail kiosk outside of the main store close to its entrance for

the purposes of key cutting, dry cleaning, shoe repair, jewellery repair, watch repairs

and engraving etc.

Moving on to the plans site, the plan in front of you is the

application site we see off the roundabout the entrance into the Tesco

store. This is the existing layout of Tesco's. This is the proposed plan if I

can just point out the kiosk if you can see the red dot is just that little

point in there, right by the entrance, a tiny kiosk.

So the kiosk itself measures 6 .5 metres wide,

2 .54 metres high, and is only 2 .2 metres deep.

It's proposed, the opening hours of the proposed kiosk

are Monday to Saturday nine till 6 p .m.,

and Sundays 10 a .m. to 4 p .m.

This application was called to committee

by Councillors Hall and Walsh.

Their concern that the development would detract

from the long -term future of the high street. There's constraints on the

existing parking and that the development would detract from the

appearance of the site. However in this instance we've received no objection

by the conservation officer or the highway's officer. Concerns have also

been raised by local people regarding the loss of a trade to a similar use on

the high streets. However we point out the competition between businesses is not a

reason to refuse planning permission. Moving on to the further plans that

shows just a layout plan of the kiosk itself and the as you can see it's just

a small wooden hut. This is a photograph of the entrance into Tesco's come with

the roundabout facing towards High Street. Next photograph is the main

entrance drive driving into the Tesco Superstore. This is the frontage, the

kiosk is actually on the left -hand side here of the cover canopy here. Another

view of the front entrance in the car park, another view of the wider car park

and that's the existing kiosk within the building itself.

With regard to competition between users, the MPPF paragraph 8 clearly states that one

of the overriding purposes of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development

which has three overarching objectives which are the independent and need to be pursued

in mutual supportive ways.

One of those objectives is an economic objective which is to help build a strong responsive

and competitive economy. We consider that this application complies with all of the

policies of the Development Plan and is recommended for approval.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:12:34

Thank you. We go one speaker. I will ask the local members, do you like to speak?

Cllr Gary Hall - 1:12:55

I cancelled the call. You got three minutes to speak. Thank you very much, Chairman. We've

been working very, very hard in Prince's Visbrough to enhance and protect our town centre. It's

a growing town and we've noticed that with the growth in the villages around the area

like Chena, Haddonham and Kimball and Longwick, but Prince's Visbrough is getting busier and

and we're very conscious of the fact that we've got to manage our town centre and protect it.

There's a lot of community concern regarding this application. I know there's a petition

gone in. I know these are not material considerations. I've sat where you are. I

understand completely. Our MP Greg Smith has led a campaign as well as Matthew and I and

the public have reacted very very strongly so I'd like you to think about

the the weight of public opinion here in Prince's Whisborough is very very

against this I mean almost unanimous unanimously across the town because this

will it compete with an existing business almost entirely and the risk of

a of a long -standing existing business going bust is very very real and now I

I was here 37 years ago, Mr. Stewart mentioned 40 years ago,

well I was here, sorry 31 years ago,

when the Tesco application came forward.

And at the time we decided because it was on the edge

of the conservation area, it had to be in brick and flint

and clay tiles and be sympathetic to the conservation area,

it's now part of the conservation area.

This Porter cabin is an eyesore. It's not going to look good. It's not going to complement the area at all.

I think that is grounds to refuse this application.

What we're asking of you today is really to help us protect and enhance our town centre in a growing town.

I mean this committee is going to be approving

hundreds and thousands of new homes over the next few years for Prince's Brisbane and that's no good if we're losing our shops

Matthew and I have called in another application where a major retail unit is

Proposed to be turned into flats, which is totally unsuitable

So I'm urging you to reject this application and please committee

debate and find a way that can satisfy the officers that you can reject this

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:15:45

thank you thank you councillor councillor was he'd like to speak you got three

minutes as well thanks chairman and thank you members taking the time to

hear us today I mean the MPPF is quite clear the planning policies and

decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local

communities the planning system should promote their long -term vitality and

viability and encourage economic activity pre -focused in existing centres

where possible. Gary and I believe that this application if approved will result

in genuine damage to the viability of Risborough's town centre. Risborough High

Street has a range of independent retailers and service providers many of

whom rely on footfall and passing trade to remain viable. My concern is that this

application runs contrary to the spirit of the town centre's first approach. We

also need to talk about car parking. This is not a large Tesco store with

extensive parking provision. The Prince's Risbou store has approximately 122

parking spaces. By comparison Tesco stores in Aylesbury and Amersham have

around 450 parking spaces with the Tesco's in Bicester Road having

approximately 690. Princess Risborough therefore has by far the smallest car

park of any comparable store where Timpson Kiosk currently operate within

Buckinghamshire. And I can tell you as a regular user of Tesco's alongside Gary

that the existing car park cannot keep up with the volumes that it already has

and that this application will drive more traffic into the site and the

potential impact on the Tesco's roundabout as well as more and more

vehicles use it, it's already very difficult to park in busy periods. This

application is not just about a small kiosk, it's about whether we believe in a

town centre first approach, whether we want to support independent high street

businesses or continue the gradual drift of commercial activities into out of

centre on edge locations. For these reasons and on behalf of the 2 ,232 people as of yesterday

night who have signed this petition, we urge you to reject this application. We heard when

you overturned the officer's decision recommendation on the previous thing about weighing benefits

and harm. As the locally elected members of Risborough who have been elected on several

occasions and between has done about 15 years of mayor as Prince of Risborough, we can tell

you that this application will do a lot more harm to Risborough. Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:18:28

Thank you, Councillor. The next speaker will be Lance. You can come forward, you can use

the mic. Mr Llanos, you've got three minutes as well

Public Speaker - 1:18:44

to speak. Hi my name is Lawrence Piper I'm the agent for the application to instal a

small Timpson kiosk adjacent to the entrance at the Tesco store in Longwick Road. This

proposal represents a modest and appropriate enhancement to an existing retail site within

the Princess Brisbane town centre. The site is located in the allocated town centre in

the adopted local plan. The national planning policy framework prioritises locating shops

within existing town centres to ensure vitality and viability. There is therefore no requirement

to undertake an assessment of town centre impact or a sequential assessment. Giving

weight to impacts on specific shops within the centre, i .e. commercial objection relating

to impact on key cutting and shoe repairing shops does not accord with the national planning

and national retail policy tests set out in the MPPF. This is not a standalone retail

destination. The kiosk is ancillary to the Tesco store and is designed to serve customers

already visiting the supermarket. As the officer's report notes, Timpson business model relies

on existing footfall rather than generating significant new trips. Consequently, there

will be no material impact on traffic levels and no parking spaces will be lost as a result

of the development. Tesco's are very aware that the car park is at times heavily pressured

and would not allow Timpson Kiosk if it would be at the detriment of its core customer shopping

experience. The proposal has also been carefully assessed from a heritage

perspective. While the site lies within the Princess Risborough Conservation

Area it sits within an urbanised environment that is visually separated

from the historic core of the town centre by existing roads and parking

areas. Following discussions with officers we removed the proposed

illuminated signage directly addressing concerns by the council's heritage

officer. The heritage officer has subsequently confirmed that the revised

scheme is acceptable and will preserve the significance and character of the conservation

area. Members should also note that the kiosk is modest in scale and located within the

existing developed footprint of the Tesco site. Officers have concluded that it will

not detract from the character of the area, will not harm neighbouring residential amenity

and raises no highway safety concerns. The highway authority has offered no objection.

In addition, the proposal qualifies for the Statutory Geminimis Biodiversity Exemption

because it affects only a very small area of existing hard standing and does not impact priority habitats.

Overall, this is a small -scale well -designed proposal in a sustainable town centre location that complies with both local and national planning policy.

It supports the continued vitality of the town centre, provides an additional service of residents and does so without causing harm to heritage assets,

highway safety,

residential amenity or biodiversity. For those reasons,

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:21:32

I respectfully ask members to support the officer recommendation and improve the approve the application. Thank you. I

Think you members a lot to ask questions three speakers

Councillor Collingwood

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:21:42

Chairman I was gonna ask the question

might be a technical question to our own offices rather than necessarily the applicant and

Or actually now it can I ask it to the local members? Yes

So just out of curiosity because I think both council Walsham and council Hall both quoted

MPPF and town centre. Am I right in my thought process that you're thinking as I would think

that Tesco is not in the town centre, it is on the edge of the town centre. It's not within

the what I would call the market town of Brisbane, like Marlborough is a market town, Brisbane

market down and therefore and therefore that's why you're in your mind in your

summation that the MPPF for town centre first applies because it effect Tesco is

outside the town centre is that is that my reading of the of how you describe

it just want double cheque my mind yes that is completely correct

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:22:40

questions about the report

Councillor Haynes.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:22:44

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:22:50

Hi, yeah, because I'm looking at page 4 .5.

You can ask the offices afterward, but you can ask the speakers any questions.

If you've got any technical questions, you can ask the offices afterward.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:23:02

Any questions for the speakers?

Okay members you can ask a technical question to our faces now.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:23:15

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:23:17

You want me to clarify whether it's in the town centre boundary?

Yeah because it says it is on 4 .5 yeah.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:23:26

The site is within the designated Princefors Risborough town centre boundary area.

It's not situated on the high street so the height the town centre boundary extends beyond

the high street.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:23:36

yeah but purposes of shop area it's not sort of a sprawl outside of the town

centre is actually

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:23:43

cancer Ramon Allen sorry counsellor you were before me just following on that

Cllr Arman Alam - 1:23:52

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:23:53

point from council who do the truth drew the boundary of the town centre

clearly I know they're not actually visited president then face it well

can we then get redrawn because that's clearly not the right answer because

it's clearly not in the town centre genuinely if you do if you go to

Risborough as I Joe through Risborough virtually every four times a week on our

way back to else be offices is not in the town centre well I think that's a

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:24:18

matter for when you consider the local plan well no no but it's material for

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:24:21

this application because what the officer is saying in the report I

fundamentally do not agree with I think that they are curates in terms of what

they said in 4 .5.

And therefore, that materially changes

where the recommendation would read.

So I'm sorry, and I guess the officer's not here

to defend himself, but I have a serious,

and Ray and I will obviously do it at length probably,

but if whoever drew the boundary

doesn't know where Risbir is, and did it as a desktop,

again, like my previous point on the previous application,

you get, you know, you rub it in, rub it out, right?

So genuinely, that's not a town centre.

I'm amazed.

Can I come in?

Yes, please.

All I can do is reiterate what's already been said.

Mr Ray Martin - 1:25:10

Within the adopted local plan, which has a proposals map, this site is included within

the town centre of Princess Risborough and therefore is afforded the same protections

as a shopping centre, as any other part of the town centre.

But that sort of misses the point,

because even if it were outside,

it's so small scale that you wouldn't require

an impact assessment on the town centre in any event.

The policies about supporting town centres

and the requirement to look at those

in terms of a sequential test

as to where a new shopping development should go,

would not capture a kiosk of this size.

And more than that,

the objection is based on the impact

on a existing competitor, commercially retail competitor,

which is not a material planning consideration.

That's why I was asking the question of the EF piece,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:26:15

because if it says it's not town centre,

then the MVPF bit comes in, if that makes sense.

So I was talking about the planning principle, not commercial.

Just to be clear.

Councillor de Maranala.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:26:27

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Arman Alam - 1:26:29

I think to some extent my questions being answered are answered, but I just wanted to

clarify.

So is the impact on the high street in Prince's Risborough not a relevant consideration at

all for planning purposes?

Competitor, you can look at it from the perspective of the competitor, but you can also look at

it from the impact on the high street.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:26:56

Well the impact on a high street would be a retail core centre, yes, would be material

planning consideration. You've got to consider whether or not a function that's already in

retail use which Tesco store is already in a retail use this is part of that

retail use in a retail area within the town centre what impact would that have

on the town centre as a whole we've argued it has a negative impact whether

it has an impact on a competitor is a different matter but that's not a plan

a consideration that we can take into account

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:27:34

Councillor Turner Thank You Chairman can I just ask if Timson's suddenly decided

to open in the high street, then would there be a planning objection then?

Would they just be able to open a site, would they not?

So in one sense, I just imagine that competition is competition.

I noticed that, I'm presuming it's a quick step, is the key cutting business.

But they also do dry cleaning, they also do shoe mending, and they do trophy engraving

I think in various other bits and pieces.

So it would mean that actually in theory you would actually not be able to open a dry cleaning

business in Tesco's because that might compete and there's quite a lot of other bits and

pieces it becomes quite restrictive I would thought.

The other question as well I'm just wondering is that clearly the heritage officer has said

that it's the actual pod itself is not an issue so really we are going to struggle against

going against one of our own professionals who say there is no problem with the

conservation issue especially as they've taken the illuminated fascia off.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:28:44

In answer to the question yes I mean any any retail use would be able to go into any

other retail facility within the town centre. It would only require planning

permission if there was a change of use but most of those uses now fall within

Class E so Timsons could just move into any of the retail shops and use a

retail function on the high street without the need for planning permission.

And also, you know, another type of key cutting facility or whatever similar facilities under

a different name would have the same rights.

Councillor Haynes.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:29:18

Yeah, I mean, I as much as I entirely appreciate what's been said by the speakers, I can't

anything that allows a special reason why we should block it. What I would say is that

there is a precedent set when people start adding on shops to their direct building and

I would say that it would have been, it would have covered all bases if the shops do what

some other supermarkets do which is actually build them to be inside the store so you actually

have to go in to see them rather than adding on shops directly outside but I

don't see there's anything we can do in this particular case if heritage have

signed it off but I would just say that it seems to be a precedent to being set

that people can add on like sort of structures with shop fronts on the

stores it's not the ideal way of you know sort of keeping that heritage but

there's nothing here that I can see as much as I'd like to and as much as I

Appreciates what's been said that we could we could have objected this going ahead if I can come back on the any extension any

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:30:28

Development that requires planning permission will be considered on its own merits in this case

It's an addition you'll be looking at the design that the where it's situated what harm would actually be caused

So I'm not sure it would actually set a precedent

But if you've got if you've got

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:30:44

Timpson on the building and you've got Tesco on the building behind what I'm saying is is it's not like a shop expansion

and it's adding on a shop.

So I'm saying in terms of heritage concerns,

it's not fitting in with the current sort of building.

It's an add -on with its own logo.

So all I'm saying is that that's not a reason

to turn this down.

I don't see a reason we've got to turn this down.

All I'm saying is it's kind of most shops

that have sort of like progressed forward,

have them inside the shop.

Like a lot of supermarkets put them inside

so that it is clearly for customers to use.

and it's not advertising outside.

But that isn't a reason to turn it down.

So it was just a comment that it's not part of the building.

It's its own entity outside of it, which is unfortunate.

But I don't see that that's a reason to turn this down.

Councillor Collywood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:31:42

I'm really cognizant that Princess Risbrough

is gonna be grow and develop

and have a lot more housing and the rest of it.

Is there a way, I can't see how we can stop this particular one,

is there a way we can have all permitted development rights taken away?

Because my concern is, this does set a precedent as much as this is the first one,

then you get a second one, then you get a third one, then you get a fourth one.

Or they keep the same footprint of the building,

but take your warehousing out and increase the floor space.

and therefore go from say, I can't remember the number,

I don't remember what the exact number is,

but say it's 10 ,000 square feet today,

could then go to 20 ,000 square feet

and then has a material impact.

Therefore, any other changes going forward

has to be a planning application going forward

because my worry is that this then sets the,

got this kiosk, then got a, I don't know,

Ginsters Pie Shop one I've seen elsewhere

where they've got four or five of these things

all popping up in front of the thing, you know,

then go it by stealth, if that makes sense.

Oh, well, it's only a little small one,

and then cumulatively, you've actually got

five of the things.

So can we have permitted development rights taken away

so that everything has to come back to the committee

going forward to make sure that,

because I think this is just the beginning

of a circumvention of how you're going to get around the rules

if that makes sense.

Because the material on its own, it's tiny,

but the cumulative effect going forward

could be massively different.

But this is an application that requires planning commission.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:33:12

and it's not permitted development in its own right.

So any similar application, if they wanted to add on,

would also require planning commission,

and it would then be up to the committee

to request an application come forward

if that's what it chose to do.

So I don't see that there'll be no value

in taking away any of the permitted development rights

because it doesn't relate to this particular development.

It's not permitted development in the first place.

But my nervousness is,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:33:40

I'm sure there must be some things they can do

that are permitted, then what I'm saying is everything has to come back going

forward to at least the officers to at least review to make sure it is valid

and either is under permitted development right or not right but the

point is it comes back to the officers because I my worry is this is a thing

in the wedge.

Mr Ray Martin - 1:34:03

Just trying to picture in my mind can we go back to the site plan?

Where are they going to put an extension on that building that's going to have an impact?

So what they would do is take the warehousing out from within the actual woody assisting

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:34:24

curtleys.

The actual footprint doesn't change but what elsewhere people have done is taken away the

warehousing piece that was just delivered just in time and increase the floor space

of the physical building.

So initially now you have two -thirds is floor space

Selling space and one -third is warehousing within the curtain to the piece

Mr Ray Martin - 1:34:46

The answer to your question is no you can't retrospectively

Take away rights from an existing development

In terms of its internal floor that wouldn't be possible

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:35:00

But if they're increasing the floor space for selling the space from 10 say 10 to 15 thousand example sure

It's a material change

Mr Ray Martin - 1:35:08

within the fabric of the existing building the scenario you're describing

if they wanted to physically extend the building then yes we could look at the

impact of that but within the envelope of the existing walls they're entitled

to do what they want with it. Except that if you got 10 ,000 square feet versus

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:35:23

15 ,000 square feet you got 50 % additional trip generation where the

carport looks too small already. Do you see where I'm coming from? So that's why I'm saying you

Mr Ray Martin - 1:35:34

condition it. So I do see what you're saying but what I'm saying is you can't

condition that retrospectively.

I have to be honest with you and say I've got no idea

where there's any restrictions on the amount of retail

floor space on this permission.

There may be and we could obviously cheque that.

So if it were controlled within the existing permission

for this development and they were seeking to rearrange

the floor space, then yes we would look at that

in terms of its impact.

But if it's not controlled within the existing permission,

we can't retrospectively apply it as a condition is what I'm saying so yeah we

are where we are with that

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:36:19

thank you as a local resident I've seen Prince's

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:36:24

Risborough grow quite dramatically so much so that can now sustain not only

the Tesco but also the M &S and a co -op.

There's a site which hasn't been developed out yet

purely because it's working on affordability.

But with that site would come a bypass.

So there is evidence that there is vehicle pressure

already within the town.

And so that bypass would be to alleviate that problem.

We've also seen numerous changes to the high street.

We've lost all the banks and it's one of the few areas,

thanks to the town council I think in many ways,

take the caps off of that,

inviting in and ensuring that the strong independence

remain within that high street

as the less brave nationals have withdrawn.

I think we've got something like 14 hairdressers now

within Princess Risborough,

but at least the high street remains vibrant.

I would argue that this does impact on the town centre

because by adding another string to the bow of Tesco's,

you're creating an even greater destination shop

that will attract the shoppers into Tesco's,

whether it be half a mile or two miles away

for the town centre, whereas it is 50 feet up the road.

And therefore, by making a destination shop,

the impact on the town centre is unacceptable,

because people will not come out of Tesco's

to go for all their other shopping elsewhere

within the town centre, which is part of their model,

but that's another storey.

For me, I have a real problem with seeing

such a vibrant high street taking a good kicking,

and it's come back repeatedly due to a lot of very, very hard work by a number of landlords

and town council.

And so I find it difficult to okay this on that basis, the fact that the impact on the

high street is too great.

And therefore I would say that by increasing the offer, it becomes a destination shop,

Therefore segregates itself from from the town centre in my mind

By councillor Martina

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:38:58

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:39:01

Hey, Jen, I'm just being devil's advocate here would a growing population not actually make the high street busier

The other question is that that you know, one of the things is there's quite a few dry cleaners in

Prince's Risborough

Bentley's quickstep themselves do dry cleaning so there's already competition. There's already been

competition in Tesco's in terms of the fact they've had the key machine there so probably

all they're doing really is actually adding shoe repairs. Now if you're going to go somewhere and

you're doing your shopping yes then I guess you might get your shoes repaired there as well but

equally if you're not going to Tesco's you might then go and go to a place that specialises

in in shoe repairs so I'm not sure it would make a difference in any other

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:40:00

Mr Ray Martin - 1:40:03

counsellor just want to come back on council Harris said I'm not belittling

the the fact that princess Risbrough has got a vibrant town centre full of

independence and that's great but I have to reiterate the point that in the

Proposals map of the adopted local plan this site which is a retail site and there's no change of use being proposed

Is in the town centre. So what you're talking about is raising an objection to

Development in one part of the town centre having an impact on another part of the town centre

And we don't have any policy basis for doing so

Counsellor his

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:40:44

Yeah, because I presume this building is going to be Tesco's and then rented.

I...

JV.

Do we have that listed?

As to whether it's...

It says it's a JV between Tesco and Timson.

Yeah.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:41:02

It's a joint venture between Tesco and Timson.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:41:07

Yeah, I'm just wondering who actually then gets to sort of like say it's theirs.

Timson.

Timson yeah, so they would own the building that goes up there and have the rights to it

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:41:25

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:41:27

In terms of whether it's its own entity or whether it's a part of what Tesco or things over this when I heard what was

Being said it was Tesco offering their customers more stuff. I'm just double -checking

because if it doesn't belong to Tesco and it's Timpson having its own add -on

then it's not Tesco's offering other services it's a new shop so I'm I'm just

trying to understand it is Timpson's on Tesco's land

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:41:52

standard it's Timpson's are the are the operator but it's clearly on Tesco's

land what what private arrangements they've made it's not for the local

planning authority to consider. Thank you because I still consider it to be

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:42:05

something that I don't see how we can object to it but I would say that

because this is an ongoing problem because the land has been adopted into

the town centre when clearly it doesn't look like it is but it is but I do

still believe that the sort of going forward there will be continuing issues

whereby should the shop extend itself so it can have those offerings inside

rather than become like its own shopping centre I do think there is an issue

there but so I I thoroughly appreciate it from everything I've heard I just do

not see how we could turn it down on a basic current planning law in the local

plan for Princess Risborough

Cllr Michael West - 1:42:55

Thank You councillor rest Thank You chair much as I sympathise with all town

councils who are trying to create and retain vibrant high streets at the

moment and it is a difficult job to do. I cannot see that is the role of this

planning committee or any planning committee to protect one one business

from competition elsewhere and quite frankly I do not believe there is a

material planning consideration that would cause us to vote against the

recommendation of the officers in this case

Thank you

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:43:35

If we have no other speakers

Anyone like to propose in second councillor amount alum, what are you proposing?

Cllr Arman Alam - 1:43:55

I propose approval as per recommendations.

Anyone second?

Councillor West.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:44:08

Who are people who can we have a voting on them who are favour for the recommending the faces at home?

7 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:44:47

Item No. 7, the date and time of the next meeting on Wednesday, 1 July at 6 .30.

8 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

And number eight, the side visit, if there's anyone available, member, on 30th June, please.

Anyone?

Here you go.

Thank you, guys.

Have a lovely evening.

Thank you.

Cllr Arman Alam

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt

Labour Party

View profile

Mr Leslie Ashton

Democratic Services Officer

Buckinghamshire Council

View profile

Cllr Mohammed Ayub

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Gary Hall

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Maz Hussain

Conservative

View profile

Mr Ray Martin

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Ms. Heather Smith

View profile

Cllr Mark Turner

Independent

View profile

Cllr Michael West

Liberal Democrats

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeWednesday, 10th June 2026 at 6:30pm

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:08

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:30

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:41

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:43

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:01:15

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:02:08

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:15

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:19

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:21

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:26

2 Appointment of Vice Chairman

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:33

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:08

4 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:03:34

Planning Applications

5 PL/25/4123/FA - Land East Of A404 and North Of Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7 1LU

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:04:19

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:17:44

Public Speaker - 0:17:58

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:20:50

Public Speakers - 0:21:00

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:23:57

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:24:09

Public Speaker - 0:24:36

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:24:54

Public Speaker - 0:24:56

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:25:40

Public Speaker - 0:26:11

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:26:38

Public Speaker - 0:26:46

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:26:53

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:27:00

Public Speaker - 0:27:15

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:28:19

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:28:22

Public Speaker - 0:28:39

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:29:09

Public Speaker - 0:29:13

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:29:16

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:29:25

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:30:09

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:11

Mr Ray Martin - 0:32:37

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:32:44

Mr Ray Martin - 0:32:47

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:33:26

Mr Ray Martin - 0:33:32

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:34:01

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:37:37

Mr Ray Martin - 0:40:03

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:40:18

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:40:22

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:42:25

Mr Ray Martin - 0:43:12

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:44:09

Ms. Heather Smith - 0:44:47

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:42

Mr Ray Martin - 0:45:49

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:46:36

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:46:39

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:46:45

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:46:50

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:49:35

Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:49:40

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:50:02

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:50:05

Cllr David Moore - 0:52:07

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:52:48

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:51

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:54:03

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:55:37

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:58:09

Cllr Michael West - 0:58:14

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:58:58

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:17

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 10th June 2026 at 6:30pm