Strategic Sites Committee - Thursday 11 June 2026, 10:00am

Strategic Sites Committee
Thursday, 11th June 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Declan Cleary
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Andy Huxley
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Harry Thomas
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Harry Thomas
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Ed Gemmell
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Ed Gemmell
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Ed Gemmell
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Ed Gemmell
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr David Moore
Public Speakers
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm

5 PL/25/2286/DE - Land at Tralee Farm, Wycombe Road, Holmer Green, Buckinghamshire

Share this agenda point

Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speakers
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Declan Cleary
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Declan Cleary
Cllr Phil Gomm
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Declan Cleary
Cllr Mark Turner
Declan Cleary
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Mark Roberts
Declan Cleary
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Mark Roberts
Declan Cleary
Cllr Mark Roberts
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Declan Cleary
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Gregory Smith
Declan Cleary
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Alex Collingwood
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.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:00

Good morning and welcome to both councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the public

at this meeting of the strategic sites committee.

Please note that this meeting is being webcast and the press and public can see and hear

the meeting through the webcast.

In the unlikely event there is a technical issue with the webcast, the meeting will be

paused until the issue is resolved.

There's a couple of housekeeping items to cover.

Members please note that the use of mobile phones is not permitted during the meeting,

so either turn them off or put them on silent.

iPads can be used to access the modern Gov app.

Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hands at the appropriate time.

Please remember to turn on your microphone before speaking and switch it off when you

have finished.

If in the event of a fire alarm, and it would not be a test, I can tell you, please use

the nearest exit, which usually is that one at the back or left or right, or that one,

so either of those four.

Then please go to the assembly point which is the riverside between the river wire and the A40,

which is literally out of the front of the building and keep to your left.

If there are any members of the press present, please can you make yourselves known?

No, any members of the press?

Okay, okay.

And then before we move to the first agenda item,

I'll ask each of the members and officers to introduce themselves, starting with Chris.

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:01:54

Good morning. I'm Chris Stewart. I'm the team leader for the West majors and for minerals

and waste. Thank you.

Declan Cleary - 0:02:02

Uh, Declan Cleary, principal planning officer in the West majors team.

The lady in the corner. Just everyone knows who you are.

Councillor Mark Turner, Chiltern Villages Ward.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:24

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:28

Councillor Mark Roberts from Amersham and Chesham -Boys Ward.

Councillor Mark Buresson, Councillor for Abbey Ward, Highwick.

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:34

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:02:38

Councillor Greg Smith, Councillor for Haddonham and Stoneward.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:02:44

Councillor Cathy Gibbon, Councillor for Bearden, Kings book and Wing.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:46

Councillor Philip Garman for the Quaington Ward.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:49

Good morning, everyone.

Cllr David Moore - 0:02:52

Councillor David Moore for the Finance and Stockpoaches Ward.

Councillor Lou Monger, Winslow Ward.

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:57

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:59

Councillor Jonathan Waters for Penn and Tyler's Green Ward.

and loud water sorry.

Councillor Andy Huxley for Aylesbury East.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:03:05

I'm Harry Thomas with Democratic Services.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:03:11

I'm Laura Lee Briggs, Legal Officer.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:17

I'm Councillor Alex Collingwood, the Chairman and Member for Marlowe and Marlowe Bottom.

Moving to Agenda Item 1.

I would like to announce that I am reappointing councillor Andy Huxley as the vice chairman of this committee for the ensuing year

Thank you, Andy. Thank you

Okay on to item two which is apologies for absence are there any policies Harry

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:03:44

yes, we just have apologies from councillor Phealy and

councillor Harris is substituting for him, but I think he's

Delayed at the moment

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:58

Okay. Item three minutes of the meeting. Do we agree minutes of the committee

meeting is held both on the 30th of March and the 20th of May.

And these can be found on page three of your agenda pack.

Is that agreed?

Okay. I'll just sign those.

you

Okay item four are there any declarations of interest

Council waters

Yes when this

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:05:11

Matter first came to the committee. My ward is different and included home a green and so I am aware of

Other rooms in that area, but have an open mind on the application. Thank you

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:33

Okay

We now consider the officers report and I will clarify the order in which the application will be considered

The planning officer will introduce the application with any relevant updates

The local members, parish or town council representatives,

members of the public and agents were invited to read out

their statements in the following order.

Local members, parish or town representatives,

objectors, supporters, agents or applicants.

It should be noted that certain provisions of the Constitution

relating to public speaking at planning committees,

I've exercised my discretion to permit a written statement from the local board

member councillor Catherine Oliver to be read out by Carrie the committee clerk

and therefore the members the committee will not be able to ask obviously any

points of her from her statement because obviously it's just her statement after

each public speaking statement members we asked be able to ask speakers for

clarification on matters in their statement, and I mean their statement, and this must

be addressed through me as your chairman. I will then ask members if they have any technical

questions of the officers. Following this, the entire committee will then discuss the

application. Members may further then seek further clarification of the officers on points

regarding the application or points raised by the speakers in the main debate. Officers

will then respond to the issues and questions raised by members. The committee will then

make a decision by vote and members will need to propose and second any

recommendations. Just to give you clarity in terms of the speaking the item

actually talks about Tralee Farm Holmer Green actually it's in Hazenbury Parish

hence why we have Hazenbury Parish and we have Little Missenden's both speaking

And again under my discretion, I have agreed with both Haizamir Parish and Little Missinan Parish,

between them they will have three minutes each and they've choose to do a joint presentation

but they have three minutes each between them, so three minutes each for each parish.

Then objector stroke supporter who's now obviously changed her position

to being a sport, again, get three minutes, the agent gets three minutes. So each of the

speakers all get identical time, so everyone gets the agreed time with them.

Turning to the local members, Councillor Gemmell, you clearly missed the deadline for speaking,

which is based back on Tuesday at 10 a .m. I only got your email this morning, but on

this occasion I will allow you to speak, but it's only for the maximum of three minutes.

But I make it clear for the good order is running this committee if you are the members miss the deadline

You will not get the opportunity to speak. Okay, so I was just being because I mean

Fair and equitable with the parishes. That's why I'm allowing you to speak but only on that basis. Okay

Okay, so in the order

The order will be that the statement will be read out from Councillor Catheryn

Oliver first, then Councillor Gemmell will then speak as a local member, then we move

to Councillor Suresh Naha from Hazelmoor Parish, then have Councillor Colin Thirse from the

Middle of Misson and the Parish between them, they also get three minutes each so they choose

between the two of them.

And then I've got Susan Jameson, who was originally

looking to be an objector, but is now a supporter.

And I have Stefano Pestasino, who's the agent.

Hopefully, that makes explanation

of the procedural pieces here.

Right.

So I'll now hand over to Declan Cleary,

who's the case officer to introduce the application.

Thank you, Declan.

Declan Cleary - 0:09:51

Thank you for that chairman and good morning councillors

So the application is a reserve matters application which is looking at the details of appearance

landscaping and scale following the outline planning permission for the construction of 87 dwellings

Which also proved the layout and access details?

at a site at Trillie farm

in Hazelmere.

Apologies that it says Homer Green there,

but ultimately that's taken from the site address

with 20 Wickham Road, which falls within Homer Green.

So the site itself is a 4 .1 hectare parcel of land,

largely rectangular.

The big parcel there is entirely within the Hazelmere area.

And the home of green element is the sliver of land between the main parcel and Wickham Road

And that's where number 20

Wickham Road is at present. So the site is bound to the north by Wickham Road and the residential properties which back onto the site

And to the west we have properties on Lacey's Drive

Kestrel Drive and Incomann Drive which also back onto the application site

To the east, we've got a large orchard area which falls outside of the application site.

And then to the south, it's shown as fields on this application where there is development

going on, residential development on that site, which I'll come on to in a moment.

In terms of the application site itself, as I've mentioned, there's an existing property

number 20 Wickham Road in the Slither in the North, a woodland on the northeast corner,

the remnant orchard on the northwest corner, a group of former agricultural buildings on

the site with the remainder of the site laid to fields with a number of small, well a number

of hedgerows crossing crossing the site.

The site forms part of the HWA to allocation.

So the application site that we're looking at

is this northern parcel here.

The southern parcel is about way home development

which has been approved and it's currently under construction.

So as I mentioned that the outline planning consent

has been granted for 87 dwellings on this northern parcel.

And in terms of the approved layout, what we're looking at here is the principle of

development has been established under the outline planning permission and that also

sought permission for details of access.

So the access has been approved from Wickham Road.

And in terms of access detail, that also includes the routes through the site and the pedestrian

links through to join to the remainder of the HW8 site to the south.

And that includes an emergency access on that southeastern corner.

What has also been approved is the extent of open space within the site.

So the woodland and the northeast is is is scheduled for attention

And we've also got an area of open space between the development and the back of Wiccan Road

properties which

Creates the the buffer between Homer green and hazelmere which was a requirement of the policy

What's also been approved is the layout so the position of all the dwellings that is

That you can see on this plan has been approved so that they're not for

Amendment or moving

and associated with that is all the

residential plots their curtledges the pot the extent of parking

Parking courts

So ultimately all the physical development that you can see there is is fixed

So what we're looking at is the scale and appearance and landscaping of the scheme.

So we've got a few street scenes here, can't show you every single property,

but the street scenes give you an indication of what is proposed based on the layout.

So it's a mix of predominantly two -storey developments throughout the site

With Eve's heights of between 4 .9 metres and 5 .1 metres in height

And ridge heights of between 8 .2 and and 9 .5 metres in height

some of the properties do include rooms within

the roof space and they show

Accommodated by small dormers to the front elevations

We're looking at the form of the buildings here as well.

So we've got predominantly gable properties, properties with hipped roofs as well.

And on this illustration here, we've also got a three -storey apartment block, and I'll

come onto that in a moment.

This is just another indication of the street scenes throughout the site.

Obviously, we've got land level changes within the site.

So the drop in land levels helps to create a varied kind of roof scape.

This is the elevation that backs onto Incomond Drive, and these properties do have accommodation

within the roofs, but this is the elevation that faces away from Incom and Drive.

And just for clarity, none of those properties have proposals, have windows within the rear

elevation looking towards within the rear roof space, sorry, looking towards Incom and Drive.

So there's no windows above two storey. In terms of materials, it's a mix of

red brick and buff brick with a variety of roofing materials as well including

grey roof tiles and ready brown roof tiles. In terms of the apartment building

this is the elevation that would be facing on to the the open space to the

north so that that buffer between Homer green and and hazelware. So this is the

smallest and the biggest form of development that's on the site.

In terms of its overall heights, we've got an eaves height of approximately seven metres

and a ridge height of 11 .4 metres.

And within this elevation, there is proposed to include two gable features which would

be rendered to create a bit of difference in interest within that elevation.

And a total of 36 openings are proposed in that elevation to look out towards the area

of open space.

I've just focused in on a couple of plots within the site.

So this is plot 49 at the top, which is approved, positioned close to the back of property on

income and drive.

The outline planning consent indicates that this unit should have a hit roof to reduce

the scale of form along that boundary and include no windows within the flank elevation.

So the proposal in that respect has satisfied the conditions of the outline.

And the same for plot number 50, which includes a hit roof and no windows within that flank

get flank elevation and that condition on the outline was was imposed to protect the

amenities of neighbouring properties.

What we are looking at as well is is the boundaries on the site.

I've touched on the materials so it's a different colour properties different coloured roofing

materials within the site.

In terms of boundaries, we've got a mix of, well, the close board fencing between the

residential gardens and where residential gardens are put, the public realm, a 1 .8 -metre

high brick wall is proposed to make a more attractive boundary fronting the public realm.

And on that point, during the course of the application,

amended plans were received

to provide a 1 .8 -metre -high brick wall adjacent

to the properties on Kestrel Drive.

So that includes number three and number two here,

which is that L -shaped plot.

And that also creates a nice backdrop

for this small parcel of open space,

which is a small orchard area.

Also detailed within this,

the purple boundaries are retaining walls.

Given the change in land levels

that you would have observed on site on the lower,

the southern parcel, there's a requirement

for retaining walls to create a terraced gardens.

As originally proposed, the terracing of the gardens wasn't provided, but with one retaining

wall along the rear boundary, which created quite a tall boundary feature.

So amended plans were requested and received, which created that terraced effect.

In terms of hard surfacing, which is also what we're looking at today, I've just given

and a snapshot of the heart surfacing across the site.

But the main routes would be asphalt with the pedestrian footways either side also being

of that material.

The scheme includes a mix of block paving along some of the secondary routes through

the site, block paving to the parking areas, and a mix of block paving as well within the

parking courts to the rear of the apartment block,

which is here, with different materials to distinguish

between the parking spaces and also the manoeuvring spaces

within that site.

Also of note is the secondary routes

throughout the public areas of open space

would be hogging paths rather than the asphalt materials.

Landscaping is obviously also out for consideration at this stage.

So, the landscaping scheme presented includes a total of 200 and, sorry,

I think around 200 new trees going into the site and that's a mix of species as well.

As you enter the site, a tree -lined entrance would be proposed.

However, due to the proximity of the adjacent dwelling, it wouldn't be able to be provided along the whole route

But where trees could be provided they had they have been proposed

the trees

Across the site would deliver the the council's requirement for canopy cover

Just of

particular notes tree trees are proposed

along the southwestern boundary of the site

where the space allows.

And also adjacent to the woodland to the east

to strengthen the woodland edge

and also adjacent to the retained woodland on site

in the northeast.

To the northwest, the outlying consent required

orchard to be delivered.

So the trees being delivered in that northwest section

of open space are a mix of fruit trees.

And there's also a small area of open space

which I touched on previously

which also contain orchard trees.

There's a sub space proposed

at the southeastern corner of the site

and that has been approved.

The details of which have been approved

through the the outline consent and also a discharge of conditions.

It's just important to note that that why it looks like it is,

is because of the the constraints on site.

So we've got no overland water course

here, and we've also got the emergency access routes to the east of it.

So we've got a triangular

a portion of land to get that space and fit into.

But it's been designed with a kind of more naturalistic

gradients than what was previously proposed.

And then ultimately it'll bring out the hillside

in that corner.

And in terms of the landscaping of that, a series of trees are proposed to one side of

that triangular pond.

A wet wildflower mix within the basin and a series of shrubs, etc., around the three

sides.

As I mentioned, the northern parcel, the northern buffer between Wickham Road, I'm just showing

you this just to give a bit more detail of the extent of trees within that space and

also to indicate the location and type of play space that's been proposed within that

area.

So, yeah, three play space features are proposed, which is in accordance with the outline and

legal agreement.

And during the course of the application, that's actually been moved so it sits more

Centrally with it within that space to allow for a bit more natural surveillance within the site and move it away from from

The road as it was previously proposed

There's a couple of visualisations here for that have been provided by the applicant just showing you these as

an indication of how the

site could look

So this is from the southeast corner from the emergency access road from the southern part of HW 8

looking over the attenuation basin

towards the

dwellings that face on to the open space

And then this is from the complete opposite corner of the site

So the north western corner looking over the northern parcel of open space and you can see the the apartment building there

and the two

further dwellings on the right there,

and the play space nestled within that open space.

Just moving on to the site photographs,

just where you've visited the site.

So this is the access from Wickham Road,

so the existing property has been approved for demolition.

Photograph on the right is the reverse of that.

So looking back towards Wickham Road,

So the road is approved within this gap here.

And landscaping is proposed along that left -hand side.

Within the site, there's a series of buildings which will have approval for demolition.

And these trees here is the retained woodland, the northeastern corner of the site.

You can see it's quite a strong green piece of infrastructure within the site.

So this is the back of the buildings looking towards the south, said HWH, south Bellway

Development is beyond that strong southern boundary there.

Possibly just make out some construction going on.

You may have seen that on site.

And as you see, there's a valley towards the south.

This is the woodland boundary to the northwest.

And then the woodland orchard, the offside orchard

is beyond that boundary.

And this is just a focus in a bit more on that dry valley

through the site.

And the emergency access has been approved through that bottom corner there.

So the subs basin is approved in that location there.

This is the southern boundary looking towards the rear properties of Incom and Drive.

Again, that southern boundary is retained.

This is looking to the northwest again.

Again, we've got the Incomand Drive properties there and the properties on Trellie Farm scheduled

for demolition on the right.

So the rear boundaries there of Incomand Drive, a bit of a closer photograph, so there's Incomand

Drive and then Kestrel Drive properties here.

So one, two, three, Kestrel Drive.

from number three, as you would have noticed on site,

that property has been demolished

into new dwellings of Arunda construction in that location.

But noting obviously in this location,

the absence of any kind of strong boundary treatment there.

Moving around the site again

towards the along the western boundary,

you can see existing vegetation on the western boundary

to the rear of Lacey's Drive, a number of those trees are off -site.

And again, this is Lacey's Drive, rear of Lacey's Drive, so some tall, strong, mature

vegetation and the properties on Lacey's Drive are set some distance away.

And this is the remains of the orchard, the remnant orchard on the north -western corner

of the site.

So it's a wicked road is

positioned behind here

and those buildings there

properties on Dean's Way.

So in terms of the

main issues as I've mentioned

the

principle of planning permission

has been granted the outline

consent and also the

means of access and the layout

of the site.

What we're looking at today is the scale, appearance and landscaping of that site.

During the course of the application, various amendments were sought and approved for agreed with the applicants

to address a number of issues that were raised by officers of the council and third parties as well.

We're satisfied that all matters in that respect are acceptable in respect to the scale, appearance

and landscaping of the sites.

We're also satisfied that all the information that was required to be submitted with the

application which was pursuant to the outline consent has been provided and that information

is acceptable.

It's worth noting that there were 51 planning conditions on the outline planning permission.

And, you know, it's quite a strict permission in its totality, and I think they're in the

region of 13, 14 schedules within the legal agreement as well.

There are still a number of matters that do need to be submitted, but that's not—they

don't form part of this application.

But ultimately, we're satisfied everything

that needs to be submitted has been submitted

and is acceptable.

So consequently, the recommendation

for this application has been that it is approved.

You will have seen an update circulated yesterday,

which also details an updated plan or amended block plan.

What that has done is provided two additional electric vehicle charging points which were

missed off.

So plot 75 didn't, it didn't show a EV charging point for that property which was an oversight.

And also there was one parking space that wouldn't have had access to a charging point

either.

So that rounded off that issue.

What that plan also shows is a commitment

to provide some landscaping within the plot of,

plot 50 adjacent to number two Kestrel Drive.

I'm looking at that as an indicative kind of suggestion

at the moment, because we don't have full details

of the size of the species, et cetera,

of those trees in that location.

So you'll note from the recommendation that it's been,

note from the update that the recommendation is amended

to include that plan and also to include

an additional condition for the details of landscaping

within plot 50 to be submitted and approved.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Declan.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:33:02

We'll now start by going to the written statement from the ward member,

Catherine Hethnal, to be read out by the clerk.

It's over to you, Harry.

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:33:11

Dear members of the Strategic Sites Committee,

I'm writing this statement as I'm unable to present at the meeting because I'm on holiday.

please can I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to submit this statement this application is for the agreement on reserve matters as

The development of this site has already been agreed

The issues I'm raising the ones that need to be agreed on before permission is given rather than asking for refusal

Safety I've never seen Thames Valley Police comment so negatively on an application before this one

There are several issues here raised by Thames Valley Police that are not necessarily to be dealt with in reserve matter applications

But a pre commencement conditions that cannot be forgotten and must be resolved before occupancy of any properties

The two main issues are the safety of pedestrians on the access road and the rear parking courts on some of the properties

The access road from Wickham Road to the dwellings is not overlooked except except at some distance by any property

This is unusual in any development and causes risks for pedestrians using the access road in addition rear car parking spaces for some of the properties

Always sounds like a good idea, but often these spaces are not used and the residents end up parking in the road outside their property

This is also potentially a safety issue for residents using the parking courts because of the lack of sight of these car parts from surrounding

dwellings

Boundary treatments it's important all the boundary treatments both the button the public realm and adjacent to the

existing dwellings around the site both protect existing residents from unwanted visitors in their homes and gardens and to ensure privacy

compliance with hazel min neighbourhood plan under policy H a

ZNP4D of the Hazelmere neighbourhood plan says that each parking space should have

an EV charging point. This is not the case so therefore this application is

not compliant with the Hazelmere neighbourhood plan. Additionally there

does not appear to be any reference with regard to a provision of a car club HZNP4C

again non -compliance with the Hazelmere neighbourhood plan. Thank you

for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Harry.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:35:07

OK, we'll now turn to Councillor Ed Gemmill, who's the local member.

And again, you have three minutes to speak.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:35:15

I think just starting in the words of my grandmother, when she was talking about lawyers and saying

they're very tricky, and that was just before I went in to decide I was going to go and

be a lawyer.

And in this particular case, we're looking at an application where right at the start

of it the Hazlewood neighbourhood plan came in and a development plan which was going

to protect. You can remain seated Chancellor, that's quite a normal practise. I'm happy

standing if that's okay with you Chair, thank you. It's a bit presumptuous but there we

go. So in that orchard in the top north west corner I found myself in front of the diggers

trashing all the trees there the minute the development plan and the Hazlewood neighbourhood

plan were coming out and those were few weeks before it came in and both were going to actually

protect the trees in that orchard.

So that's the sort of development we're dealing with here.

Three points to make on the development,

one on buffers, one on canopy, and one on carbon.

On buffers, it's already been mentioned

about the issues related to plot 50

and the dwellings around it on Kestrel Drive.

And I think we need to have that hammered out now,

not having, as was proposed to you yesterday,

that this should actually be coming forward

to be looked at later on.

So we need to put some conditions in today

that that needs to be a full buffer,

trees right the way along it and fully screened

so that the residents are protected who already existing.

In terms of canopy, the officer notes in the report 5 .54

to the committee that policy DM34

and Hazlemere neighbourhood plan two

both require the delivery of 25 % future canopy cover.

Not true, the Hazlemere neighbourhood plan

was specifically termed to say future canopy cover

of at least 25%, which would suggest

a consideration should be made if it should be more,

and I don't believe any consideration has been made,

and that that should be within an agreed time scale,

which was specifically agreed with Bucks Council officers

at the time when we were creating it,

in order to get better than the 25 years requirement

within the Wickham District Plan.

I'd like the officer to confirm

that those conversations took place

about it being more than 25%,

and within a timetable closer than the 25 years.

In relation to carbon, the Hazemay neighbourhood plan

has a requirement that all planning applications,

and this is in, I will just go up

so I can quote it directly to you.

So in HAZNP3D, all planning applications for development

are required to be accompanied by a whole life cycle

carbon emissions assessment accompanied and unless I'm wrong and I'm happy to be

wrong there's a lot of documents if it's actually in there and I'm wrong that's

fine but as far as I can see there isn't anything in there and I refer our

planning officers to a refusal we made on you know an application 24 slash 05

279 which was actually for a zero carbon home and that was refused because it

That's your time

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:38:26

Castle game well, that's your time because obviously to be fair and equitable and I would allow everyone to have about three minutes in three seconds

To get the good order, I think we can get the full picture. I'm suggesting we do all

the speakers first and then do the questions of those at the end.

We'll go with questioning the speaker if you wish to question the speaker.

Do you have any questions for Councillor Gemmell?

Because they were quite technical ones.

Councillor Gorm.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:10

Just a little bit of a clarification please, Chairman, from Councillor Gemmell.

Obviously he was waiting for the red light for danger, but anyway that's my bit to him.

Just could you clarify, sorry my back's to you.

You referred to some buffer trees down,

what road did you call it?

Kestrel Drive.

Thank you.

But on the plans that we're being shown,

it does show a buffer of trees,

but you're still promoting that.

Can you please just explain that a bit?

Yeah, certainly.

So, I mean, you won't be able to see this here,

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:39:41

but I could probably go up there and show it,

but you can see it on the bigger plan up there

where these squares are,

that there's a buffer tree in the corner

where the number five is but as you then come up and you come around to the right

and go south there are no buffer trees along there there's a big space exposing

all the gardens of the residents behind with no trees

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:40:16

Council Mark Roberts yeah quick question they hate on me a

plan can you confirm when that was adopted and in relation to when the

outline planning application was agreed yes I'm just looking at the plan at the

top 2023

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:40:30

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:40:37

I'm the same question so neighbourhood plan was pre or post outline then I got

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:40:47

have to refer to the planning officer for that but actually within all the

documents these these aspects of the hazer neighbour planner referred to and

in fact the applicant refers to it in their one of their own documents

specifically this one that I pointed out

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:41:04

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:41:09

yeah I've got a copy of the outline application reports and the hazel

mayor neighbourhood plan is down as a plan in in that report so it was

published before we looked at the outline it was taken so the enable plan

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:41:22

was taken to account when the outline application was physically decided and

it's determined then that's correct yes

take a council he's a did you indicate no okay

that's all the questions of clarification okay now go on to

Councillor Suresh Naha from Hazenmere Parish you have three minutes and

obviously then your colleague Councillor Colin Thirsk has another three minutes

so if between you you can manage the time that's lovely so we're gonna be

slightly more lenient because obviously you've got three six minutes between

the pair of you in effect. Thank you. Do I need to stand or remain seated chair? No no no

Public Speakers - 0:42:03

that was Councillor Gemmell being rather presumptuous and rather what's the

word. It's all about collaborative and roundtable in this chamber meeting.

Good. Well good morning Councillor Suresh Nihar, Chair of Hazelworth Parish

Council's Planning Committee. In light of this I'm afraid I must start my three

minutes on a negative note and to express our extreme disappointment and

how this committee of Buckinghamshire Council has treated its very own parish

councils. I speak on behalf of both Hazelmere and Little Missenden, being

given only one and a half minutes each to speak and voice the sentiments of

some 14 and a half thousand local residents has left us with a feeling

that I'm sad to say is representative of how we feel our views are often

presented regarding local planning matters and a heard overall at Buckinghamshire

Council. Parish councils are all individual and separate entities and the

voice of your local residents and to lump us together collectively as though

those voices don't matter is as I say extremely disappointing. I would like to

the chair for exercising his discretion in amending these these timings and we

appreciate the fact the full time was eventually offered but regrettably this

came to little use having only been confirmed of this very late yesterday

evening. As a result I have prepared my speech on behalf of both Little

Missington Parish Council and Hazelmere but I don't want to speak on behalf of

Colin Thirsk too much I think he may wish to say something after me. In light

of this we are however pleased that our wish to call in this application has

eventually been recognised as a proposed building of the 87 dwellings on the

land of Tralee Farm has raised significant concern amongst local

residents which I'll summarise in the following points. Point one in line with

the application design statement commitments that we insist on assurance

that landscape buffers will be provided along site boundaries delivering

amenity ecological screening and pollution mitigation benefits inclusive

of the 1 .8 metre high brick walls that are referenced throughout said commitments.

We'd also like to note the alterations to recommendations that came in again yesterday,

specifically with regards to new condition 3. Point number 2, the following security risks,

compromising public safety as identified in a Thames Valley Police consultation response for September 2025,

be mitigated without question. The inadequacy of manually operated rear parking gates,

which will likely be left open and provide no security benefit.

Poor natural surveillance of the play area and parkland with balconies offering limited

visibility particularly in winter.

Uncontrolled rear access routes between plots that should be secured and the absence of

any lighting proposals notably at the Wickham Road entrance.

It is paramount that these risks as highlighted by Thames Valley Police are not left to delegated

powers and are addressed by this committee.

Therein mitigating the overall potential risk of crime and anti -social behaviour in the

disorder at 1988 1998 sorry and finally point three that the proposed three

storey developments positioned at the site entrance on Wickham Road are

reconsidered to be more in keeping with the existing character of the area and

not present such a considerable detraction from the local street scene

existing dwellings offer privacy which is a key attraction of the area and to

compromise this would set an undue precedence which would in time

materially detriment the attraction of the area we are unfortunately witnessing

yet another development that is not in keeping with the desires of local

residents as it is in stark contrast. So at this point I'll now go into the second set

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:45:28

of three minutes that you and Councillor Cuthurst can have if that makes sense.

Public Speakers - 0:45:35

Thank you Colin Thirsk, Vice Chair of Little Missington Parish Council and thank you for

this extension that we've been given the extra three minutes. I just want to make a

reiterate a couple of points that have been made first and foremost and this may well

be outside of the remit but I want to clarify that this development is in

Hazelmere and not in Holm a green it has implications obviously in terms of

sill monies etc and also postcode location it is within the developers

interest obviously to have a whole more green postcode in terms of commercial

value of the property but we will insist that this property is actually in

Hazelmere and not in Holmer Green.

I would also reiterate that I am concerned

about the buffer or coalescence between the villages

being severely affected by this development.

I don't applaud Declan's statement

about the buffer between the villages.

It doesn't exist and the villages are in fact now

amalgamating into one village.

And I'd also like to reiterate what my colleagues

has said about the three storey buildings.

They are out of scale, out of character.

Their location at the entrance amplifies

a visual impact from Wickham Road.

The layout fails to respond appropriately

to the surrounding context and the landscaping

does not mitigate the harm this is gonna cause

to the landscape in the area.

That's really all I have to say, thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:14

Thank you both, Councillor Stu Roesner and Councillor Thirsk.

Are there any technical questions or any questions raised in the statements to the two members of the parish?

Councillor Gough.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:47:30

Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like to speak to the gentleman on the left, please.

You referred to the police report on the play area and you briefly went over there.

Obviously you've got quite a strong concern. Could you just elaborate slightly?

Do you mind if he elaborates?

Public Speakers - 0:47:50

If you're referring to the point about the play area, so that was regarding poor natural surveillance of the play area as a result of the development of what it was.

Can you, your colleague, just turn his microphone off because we're getting feedback on this.

Sorry, yes, so the point where that was poor natural surveillance of the play area and the parkland with balconies offering limited visibility

as a result of this development

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:48:14

So your concern is there's there's not enough surveillance in the properties, but surely a play area would be monitored by its parents

No, it's okay

Public Speakers - 0:48:25

It's okay, that's that's enough for me

Councillor Greg Smith.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:48:36

Thank you and again a question for the chair of the Haysmere Parish Council.

It's really just that you mentioned a bit about the landscaping and I wanted to be clear

in my mind, is there the proposal here that the Parish Council, if this is approved, the

Parish Council would take over responsibility for management and maintenance of this, the

Is it likely to go to a management company?

I don't think I'm in a position to answer that question.

Public Speakers - 0:49:10

But perhaps I'll take you back to,

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:49:15

it's really about the general issue around the management

and the safety of those communal areas

and the forward plan for that.

But I'll take it to technical.

Thank you, that's been very helpful.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:49:30

We now go on to the speaker who was speaking, Susan Jamieson, who was I think originally

objecting but is now supporting, I think.

Over to you, Susan Jamieson.

Public Speakers - 0:49:51

Okay, sorry, you could be glad to come forward and sit next to the, yeah, next to the parish

councillors will be fine. Sorry. That's okay. Don't want to take your time. Don't start

the clock. I'm not ready.

So you're okay. I'm okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Susan. Okay, over to you. Hello.

My name is Susan Jamson and I live at 2 Kestrel Drive next to the Tralee Farm development.

A new orchard runs along my flank boundary and plot 50, which has been spoken about today,

is at the rear of my garden. I have a plan here that clearly shows it which I can pass around if

you would like. I appreciate the recent conversations that I've had with the developer

and I'm pleased that the boundary treatment has been improved to provide better security and privacy for my home.

This is particularly important for my family as I have a daughter with Down syndrome.

My remaining concern is the visual impact of a large two -storey flank wall

which is approximately 33 foot high and just four metres from my boundary

facing directly into my garden.

As you will see on the plan, tree planting is used across the whole site to soften the

development.

However, my boundary is the only one that will look directly onto a flank wall without

any form of screening.

I understand from yesterday's SSC updated report new condition 3 that tree planting

is now proposed within plot 50, which I really welcome.

I also understand that the details of this planting are still to be agreed.

Please can the priority be to provide effective screening of the flank wall.

I've been given three trees you can see it on the plan but they are not

buffering the wall they are at the side of my property in fact in front of one

Kestrel Drive not two Kestrel Drive. I'm not objecting to the development I'm

I'm simply asking for a small improvement that would make a significant difference to

the outlook and amenity of my property.

That's all and you can ask me questions and I've got plans if you want to see them.

That's it.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:52:24

Any questions for Susan?

Councillor Tim.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:29

Sorry, just one quick question.

Is there anything to prevent you planting any screening at the bottom of your garden?

Public Speakers - 0:52:38

I have already planted four leylandii, nine yew trees and four cypress pines but they

can't grow quick enough. I water them, I talk to them, I feed them, they're only that big

and really this development will probably come up and there's a four metre gap between

The boundary in that wall, which I've looked up on the NHBC

Whatever it is

guidance and it says that

Appropriate screening can be put there which is what I'm asking you all for to agree to today

Castle Greg Smith

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:53:23

Thank you. Thank you chair. Yeah, I mean it's a

Looking at the plan, it does seem as if the design of the homes are very close to the

boundary and I was going to ask you about whether you think there is sufficient space

there for appropriate screening but I guess it depends on the variety of tree or bush

or whatever that is planted. You mentioned that you discussed with the developer, have

they been forthcoming in finding solutions?

Public Speakers - 0:53:55

They have honestly been really kind and they said that they didn't feel they could plant between there

but I've looked up on the NHBC and you can plant there and because I've already got my trees that are established

they do have to do special rooting foundations that has to be done anyhow.

So planting more trees in that gap. I'm not asking for massive things, I just want it to soften a wall that I'm going to be looking at.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:54:27

Okay, Councillor Moore. Thank you, Chairman. Madam, to confirm your two Kestrel drivers.

Cllr David Moore - 0:54:30

I'm number two. Yeah, it's not written in any of the plans. So I can see your house

here. Yes. On the left, it seems to be a small kind of planned cops. Yes. On the left flank

of your house. I presume you're more content on that if this was to be approved. That would

be what you would say a sufficient bit of privacy. Is it the rear flank?

Public Speakers - 0:54:55

It's the rear flank, it's the rear wall at the end of my garden. The bit down the side

was very kindly agreed that we would have a brick wall, which is great and causes, and

gives us privacy, but down the other end there isn't, there's a fence and it's a garden,

but it's the softening of the wall that is the concern.

Cassia Waters.

Just checking.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:55:25

We're talking about softening rather than full screenings.

There's something additional to just create

a little bit of a break.

Public Speakers - 0:55:32

If I had my choice, obviously, I would love full screening.

Obviously, I've looked out onto the field for 40 plus years.

So full screening would be absolute magic.

However, I would like some sort of screening that will certainly do until my trees get huge.

Okay, we can ask later on about that.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:55:54

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:55:57

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:56:15

Councillor Robert has noticed me. I have always sat strategically at the end in the lowest

seat you could possibly find.

genuinely councilman was blocking my view sorry thank you very much get to

get back to the serious day so we're discussing the screening at the bottom

of your property I must admit we were there the other day I think you were

saying the god I was I was hoping you would come over and I could show you but

I didn't see the cup of tea there but there was a cup of tea and cake else

well we'd be there would be in trouble for taking bribes I reckon so just going

We have the cops at the back of your property.

The side of my property.

You are referring to some screening,

but we are not getting into the crux of what you would like.

Your fur trees or whatever will grow so high,

they can get quite big at the same time.

Would you like to see more of a natural tree?

I will bring it up in technical,

Chairman because you know something we do drive at Bucks Council Council is

replanting of trees for different sites so it could be an opportunity if there's

a tree on site to move it that's just my fault so I'm just trying to get your

Public Speakers - 0:57:30

thoughts I don't mind what it is I just would rather look at something green and

pretty than looking at a 33 foot high 36 foot wide if we could know I'll bring

up in technical chairman because we are very keen for that to happen on site. And sorry

we didn't come over for the cup of tea. That's all right.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:57:50

As Councillor John Riley points out, if we'd have come across and had the cup of tea and

the cake, I think we would all be in trouble for the treatment. So, God, you're trying

to be basically fair and equal to all. Councillor Roberts.

Thank you. Do I go now? No, no, I've got a question for you.

Oh sorry. So I think if I recall correctly, the plan is here that there would be a boundary

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:58:13

wall and then of course there would be the wall, the flank wall of the building. So there'd

be two elements at the bottom of your garden. But at the side of my garden, which is a public

Public Speakers - 0:58:24

realm, there's going to be a whole brick wall. I did speak to the developers and they were

really kind about that and understood it. So I've got at the side of my property a 1 .8

metre high wall. At the end of my property I've got a wall and a fence on top that will

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:58:46

reach 1 .8 metres. I thought there was going to be a wall there. I asked for a wall but

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:58:50

so Susan is correct but as of today the side wall is fully brick but the back is not fully

brick. The back is not. It's part brick, part fence. Yes. And that's why Susan is raising

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:59:08

So your concern is about the visual impact of the flag wall of the property?

Rather than the boundary.

I'm happy with the boundary.

Public Speakers - 0:59:16

On the corner, if you look on the corner, there is a bit where my house meets an open

car park, which is also concern.

My daughter's got Down syndrome and if I go to the shops I want her to know she's safe.

That's why I bought the house.

So, you know, she's pretty safe with a farm behind.

but we can do something in that corner to make it safe you know for my

daughter but yeah what I'm hoping for with this meeting is to get some yeah

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:59:47

this screening of the flat wall of the property behind yes thank you

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:59:51

cancer breaks thank you chair if I made just one last quick question it's you

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:59:55

clearly you're very much focused on on your property in the back it would

appear that it looks like 27 Lacey's Drive has a similar issue. Has there been much discussion

Public Speakers - 1:00:12

about the whole length of this wall? There hasn't. Those gardens are a lot longer and that particular

property is rented so I think that they haven't really bothered. Their garden is double the size

and they have all of those properties on Lacey's Drive have been grown since we've known about this

have been growing their end bit so that it will you know block the block the the build

but we haven't got that.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:00:47

So I think we've clarified exactly which wall and which fence related to two guest room drive.

want me to pass it round so we've got the detail plan I was just touring just

drawing for the at the office is exactly where the issue we've identified the

issue thanks to your clarification thank you Harris thank you sorry I do

apologise being late there's only one issue with this I mean it's quite clear

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:01:17

from the drawing I'm looking at that the idea of having a full height wall

behind the public realm.

But if we try to put screening next to plot number 50,

of course that becomes part of the realm of the homeowner,

eventual homeowner.

So the question is whether they maintain that in order to

provide the break up of the flag wall to their property.

So they may have to be, if we were to permit this,

then we would have to see what we can do to mitigate that.

Thank you.

Terrible speakers.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:59

So Mrs. James, you need to take your microphone off now

because the problem is it gives us bad feedback already.

Okay, so I got the point, Councillor Harris.

I think we're gonna ask, it's a question,

we might do the question to this bit now

before technicals just because it's quite,

just to give clarity to everyone on the whole committee now,

so we then take the meeting forward

to discuss the wider issues.

So over to you Declan.

So yeah, just coming back on that actual point

Declan Cleary - 1:02:31

with regards to trees in private gardens.

As I mentioned in my presentation,

the outline consent was quite belt and braces,

so it has been covered in the legal agreement

to ensure that all trees within the private realm is maintained for 25 years.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:57

So on that basis you can condition if we weren't screening in that location we

could have that because that's part of that agreement piece. You could do it? Yes.

Okay and it would then be satisfied that it would be maintained

for the next 25 years. Okay. Councillor Turner. Thank you Jim. I think we're talking about

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:15

that but can we also talk about the boundary treatment as well then because

I'm assuming that there's closed board fencing is uniform between houses

there's also some fencing on top of the brick wall plus the brick wall itself

which as we know everything has a longevity point of view and how is that

going to be maintained in perpetuity across the whole of the of the print of

the estate if you like

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:03:40

In essence if they build the brick walls and all the fences there must be some

sort of condition that says they must be maintained similar to the 25 year for

the maintenance of the trees. So for instance if there's if there's

closed board fencing or some sort of closed board fencing between

properties and we know they tend to last 10 to 15 years depending what people

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:59

planted on them and they need repairing who you know who whose ownership will

they be in will they be part of the deeds will they have a requirement to

replace closed -board fencing with closed -board fencing who will maintain

the brick wall around it again I mean they do last a long time but but at some

point they weren't just just wondering through something in place well there's

usually the well the condition would usually say the boundary treatment shall

Declan Cleary - 1:04:28

be installed and thereafter retained in accordance with with the approved

details I'd need to just double cheque the exact wording of the condition to

see whether it says maintained as well but in terms of ownership that recovered

by it by the deed side of things but I can I can do some checking on the on the

actual wording of the condition with regards to boundary treatments just to

see what it says about maintenance or whether it says anything about

maintenance. I'll come back to you on that point. Thank you Jacqueline. Okay so we now

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:04

move to Stefania Petricino.

Public Speakers - 1:05:15

Thank you. Again you have three minutes. Thank you chair. Good

morning councillors. My name is Stefania Petricino and I'm the planning agent for

application speaking on behalf of the applicant, Hallridge Strategic Land.

Hallridge is part of the W .E. Black Group of Companies who are a local SME house

building in the south east of England. We fully support your officer's

recommendation to grant consent for reserve matters. As set out by your

officers, the application seeks approval for the appearance, landscaping and scale

of the proposed 87 dwellings. I must reiterate that the site is already

allocated and principal development has already been secured and acts as

arrangements from Wickham Road and the site layout have already been approved

under the outline consents. The applicant has engaged

positively with your officers and local residents during the determination

period which has resulted in improvements to the scheme including

additional tree planting, alterations to the boundary treatments and enhancements

to the elevations of the houses. This engagement has resulted in no planning

objections from Saturday consortees. Importantly this application is on land

which was allocated for housing in the Wickham District local plan.

The development of this site will bolster the council's five -year housing land supply

which currently stands at just 1 .9 years.

The proposal will deliver 48 % affordable housing on site

and we are pleased to confirm that discussions are taking place

with a number of local housing associations.

In terms of the housing mix, the development provides a variety of house sizes and types

including one and two bedroom apartments and coach houses

and two and four bedroom detached to terraced homes.

The housing mix provides a variety of options for the local area, as well as encouraging good design practises to aid the legibility within the site.

As you will see from the CGIs in the presentation, the dwellings are designed to be complementary of the local design funicular, using traditional materials and design choices.

The landscaping proposal seeks to retain key trees within the site, along with substantial tree, shrub and hedgerow planting, resulting in a 26 % canopy cover for the site.

As a result of the high quality landscaping, the development will deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain on site as required by the Section 106 Agreement,

which is a 16 .2 % habitat unit gain and a 14 .82 % hedgerow unit gain.

Finally, the dwellings will be highly energy efficient using air source heat pumps which ensure that the dwellings will be low carbon from the outset.

Hallridge have worked closely with officers, the adjacent landowners and stakeholders to ensure that there was a comprehensive and joined up approach to the wider development area that was allocated in the Local Plan under the HW8 allocation.

These include the provisions for the pedestrian cycle link connexions through both sites at two separate points, significantly improving connectivity for residents living in HW8 South and connecting public open spaces and a joined up approach on place -based strategies.

connectivity of ecological corridors to enable seamless wildlife movements and

retention enhancements of boundary plants in between both sites wherever

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:08:22

that's your time are there any questions for the agent

Councillor Waters, we'll go down left and then go right. So start with Councillor Waters,

Councillor Moore, Councillor Gough. Thank you, Chairman.

Just bear with me one second, I'm just sweating all this out. So we've then got Councillor

Gibbon, Councillor Smith, Councillor Hussain, Councillor Roberts. And if I forget, just

tell me again. Right, so we'll start with Councillor Waters and we'll go round the

table. Yes, thank you very much. I actually have

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:08:54

a number of questions. One of them I'm going to talk about initially is you mentioned the

footway, footpath access, particularly the one that links linking through the site to

Bellway and particularly I think for Homer Green where I used to be a Councillor, one

of the big things there is massive congestion around the schools and the key thing is if

we've got footpath connexions through, are we going to have those properly lit so they

are usable throughout the year so that basically to ensure that we actually minimise the amount

of cars having to drive all the way around to get to the schools, that we are encouraging

cycling and walking. But otherwise, if you don't have the lighting, they're not really

going to be usable as we get into the winter months and we really need to be moving away

from that. Obviously one of the things that is going to come is going to be a

crossing so actually to make sure all those things work we've got to make it

usable. That's my first question. I'm going to come on to the trees and other

things in a minute. Okay thank you. Yeah in terms of light and I believe that's

Public Speakers - 1:10:03

conditioned under the outline so we haven't sought to discharge the full

lighting strategy but it will include lighting along all public footpaths etc

but that is a matter of foot condition. Okay I'll cheque with the officers in

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:10:19

of how that is in the document to make sure. I agree council we want a

clarification you say we'll do that under technical but I agree with you we need

just to de -tease it out more fully. The footpath was mentioned so it's a direct question on what

was what was there but it is a technical one but I just wanted to make sure that

they were aware and why that is so important. On the trees we obviously had a lot of

discussion on boundary treatments particularly the request from Mrs. James

Is there a feasibility of getting any additional softening or trees on that

particular boundary and is it something and particularly if we're looking at I

think it's the boundary area there and also to across to where the car parking

bit is but particularly the boundary area is that something that could be

considered or is there some constraint that would prevent you from doing

Public Speakers - 1:11:13

something? This was obviously a very late request that only came in yesterday so

so we weren't able to update just the block plan.

We haven't updated the formal landscape plan,

hence the request for a condition

which essentially will require the actual landscape plans

and that will require the species mix

and that will review what species are put in

because obviously if they are going to go in next to a wall

or next to the house, certain foundations might be needed.

At this current time, the applicant has agreed to put in the three trees

that I suppose are at the rear of plot 50 which obviously sits side on.

There's a tree right in the corner, so where this neighbour's...

I'm just looking at the block plan.

Where this neighbour's garden ends, you've then got like the corner where the small car park begins.

There is a tree right in that corner already, so I don't believe anything else could be added to that corner.

Some space has to be provided for the tree to grow.

In terms of having trees coming further, I suppose, north, so that they block the actual building,

that was something that we haven't run past our landscape consultant in terms of like what species etc.

However, the condition that Declan is recommending essentially allows a new landscaping plan to be determined.

So at that point, if a tree species can be found that can be planted within that gap,

obviously still needing to give residents enough side access because

that is their side access to their property they need to be able to

maintain that tree safely which may be harder when you've got the wall of your

house there instead of just open garden that can be determined at the outline at

the condition stage sorry okay I'll leave it at that in this

okay so go on to you council the mall

Cllr David Moore - 1:13:04

Oh, sorry. OK, so the council of gold and then cast hooks.

These actually asked to speak.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:13:08

I used to get first.

Yes, go on.

Let you go.

Sorry.

I'm just being a little bit humorous today, but that's just typical me.

Just picking up on your well -spedied presentation that incorporated quite a lot there.

Two things I'd like to pick up on.

So you talked about engagement with stakeholders.

I'm just getting a slight feeling from the parish councils

that there wasn't maybe enough engagement.

Can you let me know how much engagement you did make with the parish councils, please?

Public Speakers - 1:13:46

So the applicant, as I feel a lot of you may be aware,

they've been involved in the site for just over a decade.

There's already been an awful lot of engagement outside of the planning process

with members of the parish councils over the years.

In terms of the application, we did do a leaflet drop before it was submitted.

That would have gone to the parish councils and then obviously they're statutory consultees,

so they would have been notified.

I think there was two formal consultation periods during the application process,

which has been in for about six months now.

They obviously have engaged there.

As part of, we did a minor resubmission during where we updated some of the house type packs, etc.

we did like a big condition like a response tracker and that does pick up

any comments that parish council raised. Thank you for clarifying and then again from your

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:14:35

speedy deliberation. You mentioned we're all about trees because it's a big issue

with trees throughout Bucks anyway and it's something that we're really keen.

I didn't quite catch it. Did you say that you were gonna transplant trees from

you said it in a certain way, but you get to transplant trees from different areas of the site to different areas

we like reusing?

5 PL/25/2286/DE - Land at Tralee Farm, Wycombe Road, Holmer Green, Buckinghamshire

I don't think I mentioned that.

Something you mentioned, I like the way you deliver it as well.

Is that your team at the back there? Wow.

Yes, applicant team and my colleagues, yeah.

Public Speakers - 1:15:11

So as well, as part of, I don't believe we're doing any translocation, although I'm not the landscape.

consultant as you'll see there's a very detailed landscape plan for this because as Declan has said the outline is very strict and it does

Require certain parameters even in terms of landscaping in terms of like the orchards which is a very special criteria for this site

You know bringing those back online because they've been derelict for a number of years now

Yeah, I'm not too sure if we are translocating any trees within the site itself, but we are proposing

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:15:46

I thought you did mention it in that sort of way, but again, I'll bring that up with technical chairman. Thank you

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Gough.

Could I just come in there,

mention what Councillor Gough said about

Public Speakers - 1:15:55

the conversation with parish councils,

and I would reiterate that the actual communication

has been very, very poor,

certainly to the Little Missington Parish Council.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:12

Over to you, Councillor Huxley.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm not sure whether this should come under technical

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:16:17

about trees that they look quite considerable trees that are being

planted along footways or by the side of footways and I'm mindful of the fact

that what has happened in Aylesbury trees are underpinning footways and I'm

looking long term on this situation I don't know whether it should be

technical or whether they should be directed at the agent okay I think I I

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:45

I have same issue in my ward as well councillor so I think from what the applicants saying and what

Declan's saying I think those details will be hammered out I think in the landscape and I think

that's the proposal you're putting forward I think as agent is that those finite details to get the

right species in the right locations I think from what the agents saying I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but

that's how I read it absolutely you're obviously referring back to your own landscape team to work

we're technically to work out exactly what is going to be required is that how

Public Speakers - 1:17:19

really? Stefania? Only where trees are proposed in the plot in the garden of

plot 50 we are seeking full approval for the landscaping plans so full details of

landscape and inclusion all tree species sizes and any you know like tree pits

etc that are needed we have submitted those in detail and we're seeking full

approval for them now they have obviously been prepared by a qualified

landscape consultant and they've been reviewed by the council's landscape

officer thank you for that clarification I think we'll go we'll discuss that more

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:17:51

in technical because I'm with council okay so I think I got to the right side

and I'll see councillor Kathy giving you an actual thank you I just like to run

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:18:07

through some of the objections from Thames Valley Police to see which of

these have been addressed. One of them was they they are concerned about

pedestrian access to the flats and how they would be controlled. Have you got an

Public Speakers - 1:18:22

entry system or anything like that planned? So just in terms of Thames Valley

Police we have reviewed those and as I say in my consultation response tracker

that I prepared and is on the website we went through all of Thames Valley Police's

comments line by line. Some of those matters will be covered by condition 42

which is a condition for security measures essentially and that will

mostly be around the apartment building so the actual specification of like

entry details etc will come under condition 42. Also some matters are just

building control in terms of so we haven't proposed under this application

what the specification in terms of the buzzing intercom systems what gates will

be installed as I say that will information will come under later

condition discharges, but we have considered and we have agreed with Thames

Valley that essentially pedestrians will be able to come in and out of the

building to get in and out which prevents if somebody was to somehow get

into the car park through the gates they got locked in they actually wouldn't be

able to get back out etc and they wouldn't be able to get into the

building because it's all going to be secure via either an intercom system or

residents will have a private key into the building as with normal apartment

buildings if anyone is lifting one.

Okay thank you.

Castle given? I guess you've got some more points to go for.

Double cheque here.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:19:43

They also talked about lack of pedestrian visibility when leaving the apartment building

and there's this comment about the recessed access, recessed areas as well. Have those

things been dealt with too? Yes, so we've addressed that by, at all the

Public Speakers - 1:20:09

entrances, we had like a recessed area, a bit like a canopy, we've made that shorter

so that when you go in there is a little bit of a recess but not as deep so somebody couldn't

stand there and I suppose hide within the front door area. So we have addressed that

and that is shown on the plans and all the apartment building plans.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:20:33

Oh and one other question actually, to do with the playground, I know that a window

facing the playground but are the rooms facing that play area kitchens and

Public Speakers - 1:20:45

living rooms or are they different rooms? So looking out onto the play area which

members will note that we moved the play space away from the road it's now more

central within the open space as requested by the open space officer and

actually the Thames Valley Police supported that movement as well the key

bit was overlooking and so the apartment building has been designed to have all

its balconies facing on or the ground floor apartments have like terraces so

much wider areas where you could sit out in the summer overlooking that open

space and then we have I believe it's the living rooms and like the main

bedrooms some of the more active rooms will overlook the open space. So is it

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:21:25

mainly the living room so I wouldn't call bedrooms the mostly occupied ones

because you're just sleeping there so you wouldn't be much use. Yeah it's the

Public Speakers - 1:21:32

It's the living rooms and they're like open plan living room kitchens.

So, yes, the big living room windows and obviously where the balconies are.

You've got full pane French doors overlooking.

Thank you, Councillor Givens.

I think I saw Councillor Greg Smith next.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:21:51

You know, I was taken by your comments about the importance of connectivity.

and I quite quite agree really a connected new building creates a

community not just not just a bunch of houses but but I just it appears that

the only entrance apart from the main entrance into the site is the south

southeast corner have you done any modelling about how what the likely

amount of foots bicycle other traffic is likely to come through there and how

that would impact this development, given what we know about everything else.

And the second point really is that there is a lot of talk about the infrastructure,

green infrastructure, which is quite impressive.

Is it usually your intention for that to be managed going forward by a management company,

or would you normally expect this to be transferred as a responsibility for the parish council?

Public Speakers - 1:22:55

If I begin with your first question, so in terms of movements that's all covered under the outline,

obviously we're only looking at reserve matters here so we haven't really looked at any matters

to do with movement whether they're pedestrian, vehicles etc that was agreed and because the

layouts approved we're not seeking to move any of the access arrangements etc. Obviously it's

Just important to note that whilst the main vehicle access is from Wickham Road, to ensure

that there's a seamless transition into what we call the Bellway site next door, there's

the emergency access which is just needed to join the two sites up, that is a pedestrian

cycle route as well, and then you've got that, I was going to say north, but that's wrong,

to the west, and then to the east, and then to the west you've got another pedestrian

a cycle route which will connect into that area for the beltway site.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:23:54

Okay, I've got actually again because it's great to be so far forward I hadn't spotted

Councillor Harris wanted to, it was next to Indicate as well so Councillor Harris over

to you.

Thanks very much, it seems to be a lot of questions about whether who's going to end

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:24:07

up managing this site from the implications of adding the electric gates etc to the front

the site is going to be pretty much private. I would have thought that it'd probably more

like to go to a management company or alternatively be offered to the residents to take over for

themselves. I wouldn't have thought that really would go to the parish council unless the roads

adopted. Oh for the gates. Yes that apartment building is actually an affordable housing

apartment building so it will go to the housing association who just act as a management company,

Public Speakers - 1:24:33

not just for the building, they manage all of the car parking and the gates etc. So in terms

maintenance there will be a body that people can go to and say they're not

working or you know they're failed etc and they can make them responsible for

the management there

okay cancer mother they say thank you for my question big arms I was just

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 1:24:57

regarding at the M body please concern thank you

Casa Mark Roberts yeah I had a few points if I made the first one was about

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:25:09

on the trees again. It was just if you could clarify that you could you're

going to be using native species. Yes as required by NHPC yeah it would be native species.

Okay the second point also on the ecological side of it was not

including within this proposal the ecological design strategy and ecolon

ecology management scheme I think it's called. I've got those down as conditions

34 and 35 but that my understanding those are quite tightly linked in with

the biodiversity net gain and you're asking us to accept biodiversity net

gain without having those two other proposals so what's your comment about

Public Speakers - 1:26:04

We've already approved the requirements under condition 34 and 35 so we have a

approved discharge condition for those applications. Before my time on

this committee? It was early this year we submitted the the LEMP and the

ecological management statement but those have been approved and signed off

by your in -house ecology officer. Okay well I might come back and ask under

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:26:24

technical clarification to get that confirmed. The last point was really if

If we look at the site plan up here, in terms of the boundary treatment, the thing here

really about the bottom boundary along there is much lighter in terms of your boundary

treatment than the other three boundaries of the site in terms of screening.

And that's really caused by plots 37, 49 and 50.

And if they weren't there, then obviously there would be more opportunity to incorporate

screening at those locations. So I was just interested in your choices that you've made

about the boundary treatment along that bottom line there because of the constraints of having

those plots so close to the boundary.

Public Speakers - 1:27:18

Well the layout is as I say it's already approved and the approved layout fixed the plot demises

and rough locations of the plots so we have just followed the approved layout

in terms of where buildings go and where their boundaries for gardens front

gardens go. The point was about what's your boundary treatment because

again I got the point of that bottom boundary some of it's closed board fencing

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:27:42

some of it is brick and looking at that the brick flank one definitely for number

two Kestrel is definitely brick the rest appear to be closed board fencing so my

I think your point was what have you done about mitigating boundary treatment?

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:28:02

And specifically because that boundary is the only boundary where there is public access

to the boundary that's neighbouring, that backs onto neighbouring properties. The other

boundaries that doesn't apply or they've already got boundary treatment in place. So it's important

to see what your choices have been about how you've met the boundary treatment along that

border. And in particular, I mean, you would have had the option of doing a variation to change the

layout if you wanted to incorporate a better boundary treatment along there. That would have

been an option available to you. And so I'm interested in what choices you've made in coming

forward with this proposal? Well in terms of the boundary with the existing

Public Speakers - 1:28:53

residents it was originally proposed it would all be closed -board fencing because

that's traditional fence that you'd have between gardens. We've had no objections

from those particular neighbours mostly because I think they've got much longer

gardens and it's possibly easier to maintain a closed -board fencing. The only

change we made was to appease the neighbour to Kestrel Drive by putting in

the brick wall at their request that was more of a design consideration rather

than a practical consideration but those fences will only be seen from the

gardens of the new properties and the existing properties

Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:29:40

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:29:44

Just a quick question about the affordable housing in relation to maintenance, because

presumably you've mentioned a maintenance team and so forth, that presumably somebody

has to pay for it.

I'm just wondering how that will affect houses being affordable, basically.

We're not submitting details of the affordable housing strategy.

Public Speakers - 1:30:02

that is a section 106 obligation requirement but it will be any same

arrangement that you would have with an affordable housing provider you know

they provide properties at a discounted rents for example and out of that rent

and then general management strategy they have to maintain their properties

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:27

okay don't see any other hands he'd been indicated so that concludes the public

speaking part and obviously with the clarification pieces there. We'll now move to the officers

and in terms of members wishing to clarify in terms of technical. I'd like to obviously thank

both the parish councillors and also Susan Jameson and obviously Stavania the applicant as well.

and therefore now look to the officers to go to the technical questions.

Straight away there we go. So one two three. So we start on left again so we start with

Councillor Huxley, Councillor Waters, Councillor Loomunga and then obviously

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:31:23

across to the other side as well. Thank you Chairman. Yeah back to my back to the trees

again as to what type of trees might be

put alongside footways obviously concerned about larger trees underpinning

the footway eventually so can ask what what the proposal might be okay yeah

Declan Cleary - 1:31:53

thanks for that just the top right hand corner where you do the footway

and cycleway between this site and then the rest of HW South is where I think

it's coming from because the concern would be if you put in massive big

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:32:08

mature trees they could then impact later on but also in terms of safety and

visibility you don't want big big trees like that you want it relatively clean

and clear so there's clear visibility in site between HW 8 and the site itself

because it looks like a whole row of big trees being put in there and in the

bottom right, as it were, next to the sunset piece, as it were.

I think that's where he and I are coming from.

Declan Cleary - 1:32:35

Yeah, well, it's a very detailed landscaping scheme that's been submitted with this application,

which has been reviewed by the tree officers.

As part of that information, it was required to submit information with regards to tree pits,

and that information has been provided as well and reviewed and deemed to be acceptable.

And no concerns have been raised in that regard.

I don't know the precise details or the answers in terms of the species at this moment, but

as I say, I can give you the assurances that it's been reviewed by our experts in that

regard.

The other point I'd raise is obviously that these would lie

within the open space areas.

So, we've got management companies that would be looking

at this and ensuring that the scheme is safe in perpetuity

because there'll be all sorts of legal implications if it wasn't.

But just as a closing point, yeah, it's been reviewed

by our tree officer and deemed to be appropriate. Okay over to Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:33:51

Yeah my first question goes back to the footpaths and the conditions that we put

on to make sure that we've got appropriate lighting along them to

ensure that they are usable throughout the year particularly as that is going to

be the main route for children to go to school so the safety on both is

important and will be very important. So that's my first question.

Yeah, as the agent mentioned, there is a condition on the outline plan consent, condition 38,

Declan Cleary - 1:34:19

which requires them to submit a fully detailed lighting scheme for the site. And it does

specifically say with regards to security, residential amenity and ecology matters. So

is reserved by condition to have a look at the lighting across the whole site at a later

date.

Okay.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:34:45

I just think underlining the point about that footpath, it needs to be not vague.

It's a sort of must -have.

Otherwise, we've got more traffic.

Yeah.

The condition does say it doesn't specifically talk about that route, but it does – it

Declan Cleary - 1:34:57

relates to the site.

but it does talk about the access route from Wickham Road,

and it also talks about the rear parking courts,

but it says amongst other things.

So it's something obviously as officers,

we'll be conscious of that, you know,

when we're reviewing a lighting scheme,

we know that the route from this development

through to HWA itself needs to be safe.

So we would be looking at that.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:30

saying what I would love to have you've mentioned the Wickham Road you've

mentioned the other point to actually have it clearly stated within that as an

area of concern so that is in there it's not a that doesn't get forgotten that we

know that that's an area that is really important so I'd like that to be

inserted if we could in the it would be a reasonable condition to attach although

Declan Cleary - 1:35:51

we've got that overarching condition for lighting if you deemed it to be

Necessary and to make this scheme acceptable then that would would be a reasonable condition

specifically relating to

That route then. Yep, I just think it's although there are other routes obviously within the site which

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:36:13

Considering as well because that impacts traffic

Generally, if we don't get that right, it doesn't have the impact that's been assessed that it's meant to have

So we need to get it right

On the windows, we've got conditions on those in terms of on those higher levels within the roof areas

There's none on the the rear elevations where they overlook gardens

How strong is that is the condition?

that

We presumably we have got it fully conditioned that no one could just

Come forward and just put put a window into that area to the rear. It's okay at this point, but it's it's going forward

Declan Cleary - 1:36:55

Yeah, there is obviously permitted development rights enable people to, or householders to

do works to properties.

There is a condition on the outline consent that removes permitted development rights

for such developments.

I'll just double cheque that, just to ensure it captures the correct elements of the PD

because there's quite a few.

But if you just leave that with me,

I can just double cheque and let Chris, you've got to.

Probably also, as well as on the same point,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:37:28

in terms of those flank walls,

that where there are no windows,

and we made a clear point there are no windows for a reason,

that they're also covered within that as well.

You, just to cheque that for us.

In terms of the planting,

and we have obviously raised it with the applicant in terms of that boundary on that flank wall

area.

Is there something we would be able to do in terms of discussions with the applicant

or feasibility of doing something in terms of trying to have further discussions on getting

planting in?

What could we do to ensure that that was part of today's discussions?

Because obviously we've got the planting plan as it is, the update, but it's on that

flank wall, there's been that question of whether any additional planting could go in

there to soften that flank wall.

Is there a recommendation in terms of how we could approach that?

Because I think there's a general feeling if we could do something, that would be good.

Declan Cleary - 1:38:35

In terms of the updates, we've got the amended block plan, which indicatively shows that

the three trees along the boundary of number 50

and number two, plot 50 and number two Kestrel Drive.

I view that as indicative at this stage

because it's not reflected on the other landscaping plans

or planting plans which details species, size, et cetera.

To that end, I've recommended the condition

for further details to be provided

to show what landscaping could be incorporated or is proposed along that boundary.

So the location that they're showing those trees to me is not entirely fixed and there

is flexibility under that condition for us to explore other locations along that boundary,

i .e. between the flank wall and the rear boundary of Mrs. Jamson's property.

Obviously, the caveats in that is, you know, we're looking at a space between a flank wall

and a part brick wall with fencing, which will have their own foundation details.

What we'd get in that space is not entirely clear, but we can certainly explore something

there and the points that the agent raised, of course, with regards to access and for

occupants of plot number 50 are all relevant in that whole consideration of what could

fit in that gap eventually. But just to recap, there is scope to look at further landscaping.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:40:28

My final question is on the canopy cover over a 25 year period which is what Wickham Plan

asks for but then there is what is in the neighbourhood plan for Hazelmere is slightly

different it talks about 25 years but trying to get less than.

What period of time do we believe the canopy cover will be achieved?

I don't know if that was assessed really.

It probably wasn't assessed in the realm, but ultimately were dictated by the conditions that are on the outline consent.

So whatever that says and whatever that seeks to achieve is what we can look at here.

Declan Cleary - 1:41:11

Yes, sir, can we just have a moment to look at the permitted development question because

we've got the permission here.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:41:19

Just to recap, I've got Councillor Munger followed by Councillor GOM and on the right -hand

side I've got Councillor Turner, Councillor Roberts and I think just those two, so four

formal speakers just on technicals before we then go into the open debate.

Just so everyone's aware, again about the quirk of the Constitution, so to give

clarity about the speakers, originally under the Constitution if I had

originally specified three minutes for each of the parishes technically it

would have given the applicant six minutes. So hence why the under the

Constitution it says you only have three minutes. In addition in the Constitution

it says that because unfortunately Council of Paris was delayed due to

traffic and the rest of it he's allowed to participate in the debate but

unfortunately can't physically vote so I'm just so he's fully can debate the

whole debate but unfortunately my hands are tied because I was just clap over

the legal team that I'm not allowed so when you see it so when the public sees

it they go why is he not voting it's because he wasn't here right at the

of the meeting and therefore he can participate and speak but he can't

physically vote just in case the public think it's a bit of a strange quirk but

that unfortunately is the council's constitution.

So are we ok with the permitted development?

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:42:54

Yeah so just obviously had to go through quite a few conditions on the outline to find the relevant ones but

Declan Cleary - 1:42:56

condition 43 removed all permitted development rights for the installation

to it any anything to roofs so that would include roof dormers roof lights

and we've got a specific condition with regards to plots 49 and plots 50 the

ones that have the flank elevations that face towards Kestrel Drive and Lacey

Drive to remove any windows within that side elevation so no windows could

could be installed in those properties.

Thank you for the clarification.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:43:32

Okay, so I've got Councillor Munger,

followed by Councillor Gough.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:43:39

I have one question on parking and half a dozen related

to the provision of the LEAP.

I'll just raise the parking one first

and just make reference to the points made

by Councillor Oliver in her written statement,

which I take the opportunity to endorse.

I have severe concerns and indeed significant experience

of developments where there are parking courts

and relatively narrow highways through the development

where the majority of people park rather than on

in the parking courts, which causes car parking,

in some cases partially or in rare cases,

wholly blocking the footpaths.

And I wonder if highways team have given any consideration

to restricting parking on the roads

through the development,

well the single road through the development.

So has there been any discussion any any comment by highways and can we can we

look into how we can restrict parking on the route through the development

Declan Cleary - 1:45:09

because it will happen. No it's a very valid point but possibly one that was

more pertinent to the outline planning application stage however there was a

condition in amongst the conditions with regards to condition 47 which looks at parking management

strategy across the site.

Which looks at that so off plot parking there's a parking management strategy scheme for them

to be submitted which will look at you know how parking across the site is is to be managed

in the unallocated and visitor parking areas.

I hear what you're saying.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:45:47

I assume that naturally every single purchaser

or renter of a property will be given details of that

and be expected to adhere to that parking strategy.

And we'll all have a good laugh about that one.

So let's just, I've raised my point, perhaps we can move on.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:10

I'm with you on this point so just to clarify has it already been submitted or

it to be submitted and in who then reviews that submission to make sure it

does exactly what councilman goes no my thought process exactly the same as

yours that actually means that you do get proper clear clear access through

the whole of the site so just please clarify that point first the parking

Declan Cleary - 1:46:35

Management Strategy the reason for the condition is to ensure adequate car

parking and in the interest of highway safety so it's our highways colleagues

would review that it's in amongst the highways conditions but so I would have

thought that it was a condition that was suggested by the highways officer at the

outline stage so it would go back to them for for review but if we wanted to

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:59

See it come back. I'm like councilman. I'm nervous

Of what what plans look like and what reality means in practise?

So I I would like to see that come back to us or to the officers and myself

In consultation to make sure that it is what we think it is and actually is going to deliver

We expect to deliver but over to your next point councilman

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:47:21

Thank you for your valued contribution nature and for your answer

from the officers

A number of points on the LEAP, frankly, causes me enormous concern.

I think it's in a dangerous place.

Thames Valley Police have made it clear that there's a lack of oversight, which there is.

Unfortunately, what we find is that developers always just stick the leap or the neep in some otherwise unusable corner of the site

without any thought to how it might be cared for, managed in the longer term and generally made safe.

I don't think it's in a safe place.

I think if it has to be in that corner,

moving it to the east, closer to the access road,

might be a sensible thing to consider.

I'd like to see conditioned that the surface of it,

I would say that this is referenced in paragraph 525

under hard landscaping, but 525 is very limited

in what it gives us by way of description

of the leaps, simply mentioning that the surface

will be in two different colours to delineate

the walking areas and the playing areas.

It doesn't provide us with the information

that I would certainly want.

So, to begin with, I'd like to see it conditioned

that it has a soft play or wet pour surface.

I think that's essential.

That the provision, the equipment that we have

The equipment provided meets all safety and requirements on the site and that is conditioned also.

The provision of waste bins and the collection of waste from them is certainly an issue.

I've recently been involved with discussions with a management company, local residents,

and our waste team about a problem

on a very similar development to this,

where the waste bins are wholly inadequate,

they are constantly overflowing,

there is no collection arrangement,

because we as the Council don't collect

from a private site like this.

So what will be, can we condition the collection

of waste from the site?

We've seen on the site in question,

rats on the site, dead rats on the site,

and children are playing on this every single day.

So it is an area that we need to take a great deal

more care of because of the failure

of the management companies

that these are being contracted out to.

And therefore, again, I'd like to see it conditioned

that there is a minimum of a two -weekly

and preferably every -week collection of waste

from any waste bins on the site.

In terms of conditions in relation to the maintenance

of the site, again, I'd like to see some condition on that

because we know this will end up with a private contractor.

It won't be taken by the parish council.

I'd be amazed if the parish council are prepared to do it.

So we need to condition the regular maintenance and safety inspections of the equipment on the site.

I have concerns about the footpath through that area of woodland,

and in that it looks to me as if it would be possible

for a vehicle to actually,

wide enough for a vehicle to drive along.

Is that intentional or is that a risk that we face

in terms of vehicles using that as a shortcut

through that woodland area?

If so, can we ensure that adequate provision is made

to prevent that happening at each end of that pathway.

There's no provision for parking in relation

to that leap or neap.

Yes, we would all wish that children would make

their own way through safe streets to a safe play area,

but that's rarely the case.

The only area I can see that would be parking related

to that is actually parting provision for the large unit at the north end of

the site there adjacent to the woodland area so how are we going to mitigate any

problems created by parents who wish to bring their children by car to the site

and and leave the car while they look after their children on the play area I

I think that plus the point I made earlier about lack of oversight and the concern of TVP,

I think I've covered all of my points on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Munger.

Declan Cleary - 1:53:09

Just in, obviously, quite a few points there that you've raised.

With regards to the surfacing material, I appreciate there's only so much I can, I can't say everything in the report, I can't cover absolutely.

Everything, but I can confirm that the surface material is wet pour, so it's a wet pour safety

surface, and that is detailed on the plans and also the equipment is also in accordance

with the national overarching body in terms of its design and the features.

You have obviously raised a lot of points with regards to how the open space will be

managed and maintained, et cetera.

We do have the legal agreement attached to the outline consent, which talks about the

management company, et cetera, and those details need to be submitted to us for approval at

an officer level.

and that would detail regularity, et cetera,

of how certain things across the site will be maintained.

So things like bin collection,

we can look at that through that.

Obviously, we're mindful of your opinions on that point.

With regards to the location of the play area,

that was previously proposed further to the east in in the area of open space

next to the road our view is that it's better located small centrally as as

proposed and you've also got the overlooking

from 36 windows from the apartment block

and an additional seven windows from the two dwellings

that also face towards that open space.

So we're more than satisfied that the safety elements

are being covered and bottomed off there.

And with regards to the,

I can't get my laser.

It's the diagonal path, whether or not that's wide enough.

I would assume because of the standards,

it has to be minimum 2 .2 metres wide purely because that's

what footways and cycles have to be minimum of.

I mean, some of them now are supposed to be five metres wide.

But I think if you just put condition

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:55:56

that the bollards must be at both ends,

therefore it would stop any vehicle movement coming through.

I think if you did a slight tweet that said,

the relevant number of bollards, it

maybe one two three or whatever it is but a ball is to stop that path being

made vehicle access that is pity walking and cycling I expect that the road end

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:56:19

of it is on the right hand side there's like to be a curb running down the road

so you'd have to bump up a curb yeah across a pipe pavement and into an area

that's quite obviously an open space so you know you'd you'd have to be pretty

reckless to do that. I agree but I think I'd rather be safe than sit here. Just for clarity

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:56:39

because Councillor Waters is asking me, it's across the cherry orchard, if I turn the plan

around so that it's facing the right way north and south, it's the pathway that

runs through the woodland area from bottom west northwest to top northeast.

It ends by coming to the access road into the site close to the electricity substation. So that's the

path I'm talking about. And I think for both paths both would apply if that makes sense. I'd

to me they're both footway cycle paths,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:57:27

both left and right, therefore in both cases

they should be conditioned that there are bollards

at both ends of these, they're making very clear

you've gotta basically forcibly be reckless

because I think the curbing won't be sufficient

on their own council member to stop reckless behaviour,

if that makes sense, therefore by having the bollards

at both ends of that.

it's the need for bollards that I'm raising.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:57:54

Yeah, absolutely.

And that would be related to both,

one for the play area piece,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:58:00

plus also that other one on the right -hand side as well.

Thanks for the comments.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:58:06

And I think we'll have to agree to disagree

about the oversight from the Blocker Flats,

because I don't think people will be looking

to their hard left every time they look out the window

because they'll have to to see the play area.

I think the thing is that TVP were fully consulted

and they actually agreed with the location.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:58:26

So they changed their mind.

So I can't second guess why,

but that's what they've come back and said.

That's where it should be.

Okay, well that's where it should be.

So I can't second guess.

So Council Gaughan, you've been very patient.

That's unusual for me.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:58:41

Okay, so I'm just gonna go back

to what the officer said earlier on,

and Councillor Muggins was just talking about that area

in actual fact, was that tree area.

He said it was gonna be for retention.

Has that been guaranteed that that's gonna happen

and that won't get touched?

I might have missed something in the paperwork,

but just covering that in my head, yeah.

It is absolutely guaranteed to be retained.

Thank you.

And also, and again, I might have missed this,

the pond area down the back, the collective area,

of water when we went to look,

look like a grey area as we all discussed.

But looking at the diagram,

is there anything to protect that area

from young children getting into that pond?

Because it looks like there's a tree area around it

to protect it and block its view,

but there's nothing around it to stop anyone

getting into the, I might be a bit trivial on that one,

I don't think so.

There's no fence or anything around it

that's showing, is there an intention to put one round?

The plans don't show any security elements around there.

Declan Cleary - 1:59:51

Obviously there's a balance to be struck between safety

and integrating a scheme within the site.

There's a state fencing adjacent

to the emergency access route,

but if it is an issue that you think,

we need to look at that a bit further,

let's put a condition on to cover that,

cover the point of any safety that may be required in that but it's it's not

Fully wet all the time. I know that yeah, but it's on those occasions when it is

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:00:25

I would like a condition put in there chairman because you know, there's a footpath that goes alongside it

They're gonna go to the schools vice versa

Young children will be out playing in an area and there's an opportunity to go for a little swim

that could be dangerous even if it was once a week it could be dangerous just

just to clarify the point where the where the estate fencing is that is

Declan Cleary - 2:00:48

next to the footpath the emergency access routes between the north and south

parcels it'd be nice to be looked at please if it helps that area was chosen

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:01:03

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:01:05

for the pond because it's the area with the best infiltration I agree we all

Yes, so I don't think they'll ever be watering there that you can swim in

It's just gonna get soggy

So I don't think it feels up

So yeah gets down I I agree with you sir, but that's that's an assumption that could fill up

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:01:24

But I agree a can scan we should have conditioning area to make sure we've looked at that aspect

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:01:30

Yeah, okay, just in case just in case so we can go

Okay, so this is for the immunity of both the existing totally missing residents

but also future residents so they're making sure that actually we've done it

and we should have done it. Thank you.

Your next question, Councillor Gough. No, sorry that's it. Okay so I've got

Councillor Turner I think and then Councillor Roberts and then we'll go

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:02:03

right back. Thanks just two things one utilities under the access in in terms

of the lead -in from Wickham Road obviously the whole of the of this area

all these houses depend on that access and question is if they're going to be

utilities under the road that occasionally get dug up so is it

possible to avoid that I don't know if that's something that can be done I

know there's an emergency access on the way back but it's not ideal because it's

not very big and then the other thing is is just was from Councillor Gemmell's

point earlier with regard to a whole life cycle carbon emission statement

which is under the neighbourhood plan. Has that

actually been provided? Because that must surely be a requirement if so. With

regards to the utility side of things obviously what we're looking at in this

Declan Cleary - 2:02:56

application is the scale appearance and landscaping of the scheme so that's not

Would it not be part of the landscaping in terms of…?

And with regards to the whole life cycle emissions statement, the planning application is the

outline planning application.

This is reserve matters, which is essentially a conditions application.

But the outline planning permission has conditions on it which relate to elements of net zero

carbon, low carbon side of things, including a condition that requires the development

to meet certain standards and for them to demonstrate that.

So we're satisfied that the points have been covered.

Does that mean that it was provided?

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:03:47

There was a statement submitted with the outline planning consent, planning application, which

Declan Cleary - 2:03:57

is the planning application, but not with this application, because there was no requirement

by condition for them to submit that information, but there are conditions that relate to low

carbon and energy consumption, et cetera.

OK.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:04:11

So, just, I mean, I noticed that a lot of the thing in this is about the, you know,

lack of gas boilers and all that kind of stuff.

So, would that not still be part of the application?

I'm just trying to work out why if there was no such actual thing, because it's obviously

in the neighbourhood plan is it something that we don't... So that's why it was submitted with the

outlined planning application. So it was submitted then? With the outlined plan. Right, okay. Thank you.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:04:38

Yet I'll come back to the point I made earlier but I just want to agree with

the condition that Councillor GOM was raising about safety equipment at the

In my ward we have river attenuation ponds and it's a requirement and as we all know

things are getting wetter so whatever we think now these ponds are likely to be wetter in

future.

So I definitely agree with that one.

I want to return to the question I made earlier to just clarify the point about the, we got

the comments from the Ecology Officer about the Ecological Design Statement, Condition

condition 34 and the landscape epidemiological management scheme condition 35 and the ecology

officer raised that compromising the biodiversity net gain assessment that we're being asked

to accept.

So I just want to have your comments on that and see what the position is from your point

of view.

Declan Cleary - 2:05:39

So with regards to the original comments that were raised by the ecology officer, they were

of the opinion that they wanted conditions 34 and 35 to be discharged at this stage.

So the applicants didn't need to because of pre -commencement conditions and the information

in that respect wasn't required to be submitted as part of this reserve matters application,

but they have submitted that information and that's been reviewed by the ecology officer and

it has been accepted.

I think the other pertinent point to raise with regards to BNG and that whole side of

things is that's covered in the legal agreement as well and that following on from the approval

of the reserve matters application, there's a requirement for them to submit a biodiversity

impact assessment which will tell us how much, where we are in the net gain side of things.

The important thing to point out on that is at the time the application outline application

was submitted, we were in a position where BNG wasn't going to be provided on site in

its entirety, it relied on off site.

The updated BNG figures that are now being presented by the applicants suggest that 10 %

could be achieved on site, which is obviously a benefit of the scheme.

But we're not there at agreement on that yet.

That's required to be submitted as part of the biodiversity impact assessment pursuant

to the 106.

So we'll look at that in a bit more detail when that's submitted following on from the

approval of should this reserve matters be approved.

Okay.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:07:23

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:07:26

The second point I had was a more general one, really, which is that just around clarity

of what exactly we're being asked to judge on today, because so much of what's been referred

to is covered in conditions that would be resolved later or Section 106 agreements that

are later.

So everything seems to be downstream of where we are today, which makes it quite confusing

as to what exactly is determining our decision today.

Are we are we at risk of having so much the

Determined downstream that we're not actually controlling anything in this decision. We're looking at today

Well today we're looking at the

scale

Declan Cleary - 2:08:14

appearance and landscaping of the site and

The additional information that was required to be submitted

as part of the outline consent with the reserve matters application.

So that's things like your boundary treatments,

the ancillary structures, the location of the play park, etcetera.

The minor routes through the open space.

Obviously, we're in this kind of middle stage, I guess,

in terms of what we're looking at.

But it's the scale of those buildings in those locations

that we have approved previously at the outline stage and that what they look

like and the location of trees but what we've had in the discussion today is

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:09:03

quite a significant amount of the landscaping element which we are

supposed to be looking at today has been referenced as being resolved in

condition being conditioned rather than us deciding it today that it would be

Resolved via a condition downstream. So we're not actually resolving the landscaping today

What we're what we're looking at is conditions about landscaping that would be agreed at some future time that we wouldn't be in

necessarily judging on

misunderstood that

Not entirely correct what we're looking at is

Declan Cleary - 2:09:38

The landscaping throughout the site what we've been talking about is the landscaping within plot 50

We will be reserving that for a later date

because we received a plan yesterday showing

that they're going to put three trees within that plot.

But elsewhere across the site, we've

got a fully detailed landscaping scheme

showing where the trees are, what the shrubs are going to be,

et cetera, et cetera.

Throughout the site, we're looking

at the location of those trees, the species, the mix,

the size, et cetera.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:10:18

So we are agreeing the overall landscaping scheme but there will be

requirements of conditions because of the additional piece in terms of number

two Kestrel close and number 50 there'll be additional requires some conditions

on top one of these I've been talking to the officers about is where we might

vary it slightly where it says approval minded to approve subject to referral

back to in consultation with the chairman which we've done before where

we've done through things like legal agreement and also conditions to make

sure that there's a control and cheque from the committee in effect on the on

behalf of the committee to make sure we actually pick up all the points that the

members have raised if I make sense, rather than just straight approval because I like

you have got slight nervousness about bio -nate diversity gain and also some

other bits as well so it that's one of these we could choose to do as a

committee later on but just flag that I'm cognizant of what you're saying.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:11:15

Would an alternative, would it be legitimate for us to defer until those items were resolved

and we had a different, had the detail of those points too? Because they've given us the detailed

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:11:22

landscape scheme for the whole scheme as a whole but there are elements within it we want additional

clarity on if that makes sense. So what's in front of us is a full landscape scheme in terms of shape,

size, number of trees, locations, type of trees and the rest of it so we would be in effect agreeing

the overall master plan if that makes sense but I think so you wouldn't defer

because they've given us that detail you wouldn't defer it for the elements

we're talking about what we're saying is that's the agree the sort of agreement

and principle if that makes sense but there are certain elements we're not

comfortable with we want to come back to in fact myself and the officers on your

behalf to then go through detail behind some of the elements of that but the

actual master landscape scheme is physically in front of us

Yeah, I was just gonna say, and it includes hard landscaping as well.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:12:11

So during the presentation, you saw a picture of the tarmac and the block paving, etc.

When you discussed just now about there should be more bollards, a bollard is a hard landscape

feature.

So that's entirely legitimate to look at that.

And, you know, if you feel that's needed, then you can condition that.

So no, that's another aspect of landscaping.

It's not any trees, it's hard surfaces as well.

So I don't think I saw any more, oh sorry,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:12:42

I've got Hans coming up again.

So I'm gonna go Councillor Huxley,

because you would have had a go at it already,

Councillor Munger, and then also Councillor Huxley,

then Councillor Munger.

It's only very quick, Madam Chairman,

it might sound silly in a way.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:12:55

Do you need to condition the play area

to have adequate drainage. The reason why I bring it up is that Aston Reach in Aylesbury

built a play area and built it without drainage and I could tell you that probably up to half

of the year it's not usable because it's not fit for purpose. They happen to go back and

put in adequate drainage so the reason why I ask the question.

Declan Cleary - 2:13:42

the whole site which has been

submitted and approved by the

LLFA.

So that covers the red edge.

I couldn't tell you today what

exactly that looks like with

regards to the specific play

area though.

But I will leave that up to the

with you to mull over.

I think we might be wearing additional conditioner in Councillor Huxley.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:14:09

Councillor Munger.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:14:13

Thank you chair. I hope you'll take this this point because technically it does

start with a technical issue and that was in relation to the discussion we had

about the tree potential screening at the bottom of the garden of 2 Kestrel

drive Mrs. Jameson's point and I think technically the issue I think it might

have actually been the representative of the developer the applicant who said

there would be there's obviously a restricted area between that that

building and the wall of the boundary there I just wonder whether officers

might consider whether it would be worth facilitating a discussion between

themselves, the applicant and Mrs. Jameson if she were interested as to whether a possible solution

might be for the applicant to gift some trees and the installation thereof to Mrs. Jameson within

her own garden which would then resolve the issue of any potential risk of putting additional trees

in between the development and the boundary. I'll leave that with you.

And indeed Mrs. Jameson who may or may not want to avail herself of that.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:42

And my follow -up to that is could we condition because Mrs. Jameson pointed

out that the flank wall is a full 1 .8 metre brick wall. It struck me for both

the safety security and privacy of both her and people at number 50 rather

having a half brick half fence wall would it obviously make more sense to

have a full brick wall around the whole of the boundary and if that's

acceptable to everybody I thought you can't speak at this point

unfortunately but it just it just seems a bit weird while you do a full brick

wall on one half and then not do on the other half it just doesn't make sense

But then that would be separate to the additional piece about the screening piece

because I think there's a good element there that there's some sort of condition that screening can be provided

that's among those points, but again the actual details of exactly where and how

because I did get the point from the agent that they would be restricted access

because it's the side access to number 50, you might struggle to put stuff in there that wouldn't survive and thrive if that makes sense

So it might be simpler to do a proper brick wall

and then you have your screening,

Mrs. James inside, if that makes sense.

But the officers then do the detail behind the schemes

of exactly what the nature of that

actually looks like afterwards.

Chairman, I just think when an applicant

puts in an application for details,

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:17:04

in this case of fencing, walling, et cetera,

we're running in a danger of trying to redesign

those details to be something else.

They've ultimately, we either approve or refuse the details

that are submitted.

The developer is in the room and there's,

I'm sorry, Mrs. Jamson is as well.

So they're hearing the conversation.

If they wish to make changes and wish to discuss this then.

That's lovely.

But you and I both know,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:17:38

immunity for existing residents

and immunity for future residents

is a material planning consideration.

So the fact that detail happens to deliver that piece to it,

that's a material planning consideration,

which we can choose.

So I get what you're saying about getting too far in detail,

but if we can do the principle behind it that says,

actually, for the betterment of existing residents

and future residents, and then leave the detail

between Ms. Jameson, the applicant,

and yourself, the officers,

then that, I think, is sufficiently good enough.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:18:11

Yeah, my point is we have a proposal in front of us and the job of a planning authority

is to consider an application on its merits having regard to the development plan, et

cetera, et cetera.

And if the scheme is acceptable, it's acceptable.

There might be a better scheme, but that's not what we're being asked.

And we're not asked that whenever we consider a planning application.

But because the people concerned are in the room if they want to change

You know if the door love wants to change a detail they can easily do that

Through a through a non -material amendment and we can process that quite quickly

but I don't think as a

As a committee, it's right to try and redesign

Thanks, okay

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:18:59

Think I would go back to what the officer said when we have the initial discussion because there is this late

the applicant in terms of some planting on that area. It gives us the opportunity to

have a discussion with the applicant in terms of the boundary and condition that as something

to be taken away, probably with yourself involved, to see what actually improvements can take

place. Obviously within that you may well be talking to the applicant and Mr James about

something else, but actually it gives us the opportunity to condition that for the officer

to go back, talk about the late submission of those additional trees and if we actually

are able to get anything else done on that boundary.

And I think that was quite a good condition that came forward and actually covers all

that we need to discuss and we're not going against what the applicant has put in.

We're actually just working with that rather than us trying to redesign everything.

That's where I would go.

so I was actually very comfortable with what was stated by Declan.

Yeah, we'd be absolutely comfortable with that. That's well put. Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:20:09

Councillor Waters, Councillor Grace Smith.

Thank you, Chairman. Just jumping in with the last question,

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:20:16

given that I'm a new to this committee and I have a niggling difficulty really,

It seems that we are accepting that developments of this size,

the roads will always be unadopted and that communal space will always be given to a management company

rather than given as an option for the parish council to manage.

And it is a niggling concern because at the moment we're talking about the loss of green space.

when the houses are built these are gonna be neighbours and it seems odd that

we're running against our own policy as a council of not really

considering place -setting and this connectivity of communities.

There are a number of strands in what you've just said one of them is

Declan Cleary - 2:21:11

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:21:14

about who maintains spaces sometimes parish councils do come forward and say

we would like to maintain open spaces.

But my understanding is that it hasn't been offered

and isn't generally, the developments of this type

are not generally offered to the parish council,

some of which will be keen, others less so.

Yeah, and the important point here is we can't require that.

Now, if an applicant wants to set up a management company

to maintain the spaces, the planning issue

is that those spaces are maintained properly,

not who maintains them. So that's that's the situation here we have the legal

agreements in place to make sure spaces are properly maintained and the roads

are properly maintained. Now if subsequently the applicant wants the

roads adopted they can speak to the highway authority and see if that's

possible but we can't require that and we can't require the parish to that's

part of the planning process so yes Chris the officer said is that you can't

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:22:20

physically demand and require that as part of the planning process we are just

looking at the plans themselves and saying are they acceptable and we

approve them or not with subject conditions etc going forward on it

Cas Harris you've been very patient thanks I was merely going to add that

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:22:38

I've got a huge number of parishes within my constituency constituency

within my ward and some don't even want to raise enough money for a village

fate let alone look after the grass or other other community assets whilst

others are like Haddonham huge and want to take on as much as they possibly can

which I admire them for but it's not to everyone's taste.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:23:04

I think as you rightly say Councillor, each parish has its own requirements and therefore will then choose to

where they wish to take things on or not.

I know Molotan Council, unfortunately can't,

as many people can't, unfortunately,

but so Molotan Council,

I had them take on large amounts of things,

but Molobossum next door doesn't.

So again, they literally may bring more parishes,

and so the Great Mile.

Okay, so that's all the technical questions.

Are we happy to go on to the debate,

or do you want a comfort break at this point,

four, five minutes?

I think the comfort break would be fair and obviously not allowed to discuss the

application but obviously okay I'll go with the majority of the people crack on

although a comfort break it's up to whether people so everyone says crack on

okay crack on okay okay okay so we never onto the actual debate itself in terms

of the applications before us.

Obviously a number of technical questions have been raised,

number of technical points being put through,

and a number of suggestions

in terms of additional conditions.

Obviously a number of us did go on the site visit,

so I was gonna go to the site visit members first,

what their thoughts and views were of that.

So I'll start with Councillor Huxley

and go around that way if that makes sense,

the actual site member visits.

Is there anything you wish to add or discuss

or whatever the addition to the technicals over to you council hugs really not a lot chairman yes

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:24:40

looked at the site I think the the work one or two concerning bits obviously the

where the lady occupies I'm sorry I missed out on the cake but you know I'm

sure it was very nice cake as well but yeah there was yeah interesting bits

certainly in that top corner where the tenuation pond is going to go but I

think if all the conditions are met then I would probably be mindful to certainly

approve the application.

Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:25:28

Thank you chair as one of the Councillors who was involved in this from the

beginning of the Bucks Council when it came through and we've been through quite a lot

of elements of it including ensuring that some separation was put back into the plan

so that's why you have what was the Cherry Orchard put back and that went to appeal so

when the question came up about that the inspector said that that was definitely part of what

was considered within the Wickham plan.

I think there has been quite a lot of movements forward.

The things I do want is that we do put that condition in,

that we are going to review the additional planting

that has come in and within that process,

look at planting near the flank wall of the house

to try and soften that aspect.

And obviously what can go in there would have to be reviewed properly.

Within that conversation, I would be happy for the officer and the chairman to be involved in taking that forward.

So that would be what I would hope to see in a condition.

I'd also like to see, as I said, because I've been a bit pedantic about this,

in terms of within the lighting that we are making sure that those footpaths are properly lit so they actually are

performing the reduction of use of

cars around the area where

Particularly

It's not so much this estate actually the Bellway one where actually all the cars would be which is a much bigger site

Would be coming all the way around

in to the schools of all the different levels.

So that's important to make sure that's right.

In terms of security and some of the things

that the police have said, I think there was some comfort

in terms of how things will be managed,

particularly for the flats.

Electronic gates, particularly, are gonna be important

on the back parking areas, because if they are manually

dealt with, they could cause massive problems and they will need to be maintained.

So that would be just flagging to make sure that that is part of the maintenance that

they're clearly stated.

And picking up on, making sure and reviewing Councillor Gomes' point which was in terms

of the fencing, looking at that around the attenuation pond to make sure that that safety

is fully covered. With those points, oh, and the other one is to make sure, I think the

path which particularly Councillor Munger was talking about is as you come in from the

Wickham Road on your right hand side, there is a wide path that goes across the corner

of what was the old cherry orchard and where the play area is and it's at the end of those

I think particularly that some form of bollards or anything particularly scooters and things

like that, any kind of motorised vehicle that could go down there because that would be

dangerous with children to make sure that that's covered in the hard landscaping.

Other than that I think after years of this going through I think we are at a point where

If we've got all those those elements in there, there's a huge number conditions that need to be delivered on I

Would feel comfortable in supporting the application

Thank You cancer waters

Has cancer gone you on the site visit you?

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:29:27

You happy to as you are

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:29:29

So I'm very happy with what we saw on site, happy with the presentation that

we've gone through today and again I will be like colleagues supporting the

application.

Councillor O 'Byrne, are you on site visit as well?

I wasn't on the site visit.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:29:46

Sorry, Councillor Grey -Smith was.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:29:51

Thank you chair, yes I was on the site visit and learnt a lot from being there.

It's very clear that this is a development that is going to happen.

it feels as if today's debate really is about how this community or this this

development can fit into the local community so that it is a beneficial

part of the local community and not just an isolated island that carries further

resentment and and so I'll be voting in favour because there is no alternative

but yeah the concerns really has to be about how to integrate new new

developments into into existing communities. Thank you. Councillor Gibbon you're on site visit as well.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:30:34

So over to you. Just one one thing that crossed my mind which I probably should have

mentioned earlier was that hopefully the trees that are alongside the path from

Wickham Road aren't deciduous because leaves would you know collect in that

sort of enclosed area and be very dangerous but I'm assuming that the

people have looked at that. So you're suggesting there might be evergreen rather than deciduous?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:30:59

Well I think if because in that enclosed area if the leaves fell then it rains

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:31:02

they become very dangerous so either somebody would have to be the whoever's

maintaining it would have to clear the leaves or put evergreen so they don't

lose the leaves that's just one thing that crossed my mind. I was wondering

weather just a sign for that area that I think over the next few years it's

probably unlikely there'll be a lake there at the bottom but I think maybe a

sign just warning people that the ground could be wet because again it could be

dangerous if it's you know, slippery grass, people could fall over and you know

depending on how fit you are you could have severe damage. I don't like the car

parking because you can't see your cars from your house and a lot of cases but

That's the thing I can do about that.

I do hope I have a slight concern that the police issues

aren't being dealt with absolutely, sort of,

thoroughly.

So hopefully they will be, because that's

a legal obligation to do with crime and disorder.

So as long as the police issues are thoroughly dealt with,

I would be happy.

My last point is I really feel that it's worth the applicant working with the lady here at

number two because I've found from Kingsbrook, I know it's a much larger estate, but because

they did work with the residents, everybody's very happy with that.

The state is very well run, the residents love it there, and I think it's worthwhile

having that sort of relationship with residents so that the whole area that everyone is happy

and I think it really is worth them negotiating with her to get whatever boundary that they're

both happy with. And as long as all of those things are done, I would be happy to approve.

So I've got the ones who weren't on site visit. I've got Councillor Munger,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:32:57

Councillor Roberts. Oh sorry, Councillor Roberts first you, sorry, yes you were, sorry.

Just mean that they say different side. Sorry

yeah, I just want to say I'm

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:33:08

I'm in favour of the principle of developing the site. I think you know, it's obviously an overwhelming need for housing and

Having been to the site

I think it is reasonable that we develop the site and obviously that's been addressed in the outline application

I totally understand the issues around separation and coalescence

Holmer Green and Hazelmere and so there is an attempt in this to maintain some kind of

boundary.

The boundary is kind of blurred anyway as you go up Salt Pit Hill, you know, where does

Hazelmere end and Holmer Green start, I'm not actually sure myself, you go from one

to the other quite quickly.

So there is that concern about coalescence in a lot of our communities as we see developments

everywhere.

But I understand our role today is about the design scale and landscaping.

I would have preferred to have more of those details in front of us today to be able to

decide on rather than them being resolved via conditions or in the section 106 agreements

so that we were making a determination of those matters today.

But having had the discussion, I'm comfortable with where we are and the assurances that we've received.

So we have had some idlements raised and as long as they're covered, like I noted down the lighting on the footways,

the additional changes that have come in around the boundary, particularly around number 50, plot 50,

bollards on the footways and safety signage and equipment at the attenuation pond.

I think if we can cover those elements off in conditions or that they're satisfied that they're covered by conditions that already exist,

then I'd be minded to support the recommendations.

And Councillor Turner, you've been very patient.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:35:17

Thank you Chairman. I've just got only a couple things in that I agree with the

conditions that people have mentioned I think that's very variable. My only

caveat is really partly what Councillor Smith referred to which is the

integration of society and I think we've got to be very careful that we're not

going to build Hadrian's Wall around this and put some machine gun nests and

basically prevent people either keep them in or keep them out I don't know

which and I think there has to be a degree of integration and I think

sometimes that perhaps the police's scrutiny might be slightly overzealous

in some cases. I don't believe and I don't live in Hazelmoor but I've

travelled through it many times and I've never really felt that there's a huge

amount of antisocial behaviour in that area so I just think we have to be

reasonable about that type of thing.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:36:04

Certainly from my perspective I agree with the points being raised I think the

particularly for the between the HW8 and this site and then going through to

Hazenmere and to Holmall Green. I think that is quite key because I think that

will then be a much, being the wider whole HW8 match much more

integrated into the whole of the area if that makes sense. So I think we should

make sure that is done itself. So yeah so I've got down conditions for additional

planting screens to soften the aspect, the lighting of the footpaths for safety

and security of both residents and cyclists, the parking areas need to be

tightly looked at to make sure that they are usable and protected, the fencing

stroke signs at Tenuation Pond and the bollards for the footwork to protect the

footways and cycleways across the whole site so that they are not gonna have

access on them and last we've got is every tree every preferably ever in

trees on the entrance because I get on the entrance from the main Wickham Road

that actually that could be an awful lot of if you've got a lot of wet leaves

that could be if that's the main cycle and footway to get to the relevant

school which it is that if you had serious trees that could cause you an

issue later on I think we do need to remind ourselves about the drainage

piece to make sure that the drainage bit does cover off the usability of the play

area and then finally about plot 50 some of the condition that makes it so that

actually works fully if that makes sense now I know says for approval but I'm

happy if we need to amend the wording slightly so then say in consultation

with the chairman because of all the best different issues have been raised

to make sure they're all dead that was because I get the sense from the

committee they want to make sure that the we have as the members have a view

of making sure that what we've clearly articulated actually is delivered.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:38:03

Thank you chair only to say that it seems to me we're actually in a sort of defer

and delegate position rather than approve. We seem to have an awful lot of

conditions that remain to be buttoned down and some outstanding issues that

that the officers have agreed to look at again.

There is no doubt that the ship has sailed

in terms of whether the development is going to go ahead

or not, but all of the issues that you've just reiterated

are important to the,

either the existing residents in the neighbouring areas

or in particular to the new residents of this development.

and I think particularly those relating to car parking and to children's safety in relation to the LEAP.

I trust officers to look very closely at those situations again before formal approval is granted.

So thanks for the opportunity.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:39:10

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:39:14

Chairman, if I may just come in. It was about something that you mentioned about the trees

on the access road. We've just checked. They're birch trees, so they are deciduous trees.

So that's what the proposal is. It's birch trees. Now, there will, of course, be leaves

dropped in the autumn but that's sort of no different from most avenues in you

know in Buckinghamshire really that mainly avenues of trees are are

deciduous so that there may be a little bit of inconvenience but hopefully we

don't you know we won't need to change that detail.

Councillor Gibbon, you want to come back?

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:39:58

I'm sorry I disagree with you because normally on roads and avenues there's wind and it could sort of blow them but

They're in an enclosed space, that's my concern,

because you've got, I'd imagine,

you've got the boundaries both sides,

so the leaves are trapped there.

They can't just blow away,

which normally in the streets they would do.

Yeah, the tree officers have said that's acceptable.

And I mean.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:40:22

Sorry, gentlemen, just to point out,

on the side where the trees will be,

if you're looking at the Wickham Road entrance,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:40:29

there's no pavement on the side where the trees are it's only the road just to

clarify for the councillor given so the foot ways are fully clear because the

ways don't have any trees over them on the road entrance

clarification okay I think obviously that's obviously why the truth is said

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:40:52

that's acceptable because it's nowhere yeah rather being on the foot way itself

Okay. So obviously, the actual decision is obviously for approval, but in terms of the mechanism, how that works,

and us making sure that all the conditions we've raised and all the additional points we've raised,

how we make sure that's actually controlled. So I'm happy to see...

Consultation is changed.

Yeah, so I don't know how that... just what wording do we need to make it work?

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:41:26

Yeah, so I think if the recommendation is for approval, it would be approval subject

to the following matters being resolved by condition or additional detail.

And we've heard those matters summarised by yourself.

And then subject to the conditions that are in the report.

So I think that would be the recommendation.

In consultation with the chairman?

Certainly in consultation with the chairman, yes.

So you need that to be a proposal?

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:42:06

Alex, just one thing as a former resident of Hazelweir and a Penn councillor, the lighting

we're proposing, can we make sure that it's subtle?

We don't want to make it look like Stalag 13.

We want it safe enough for children to walk home, but we don't.

because a lot of the people in the area would turn around and say they won't want a light within 100 miles of the house.

No, to me it was the hooded cowls as it were,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:42:29

subdued but safe and secure, that the children could walk there through 365 days of the year,

that they can either cycle and or walk but it'd be safe but subtle.

And that's what we discussed on site actually, exactly that scenario of

it's got to be fully usable for the cycle path and walking but it's got to be

to be serving to the rest of the site, if that makes sense.

So that's the amended officer's recommendation

as set out by Mr. Stewart.

Do I have a proposer for that?

Okay, sorry.

So, unfortunately, Councillor Harris,

much as you were a local resident,

you're not allowed to because of the way

the constitution weirdly works.

But as he said, he's fully involved with the debate, but obviously he has to sit and not

vote, unfortunately.

So I need a proposal and a seconder of that.

So Councillor Gaughan, I'll call you first time, Councillor Gaughan, by Councillor Muppett

who will be saying the seconding.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:43:34

So that's the proposal, so approval subject to the conditions as set out by Mr Stewart,

in consultation with the Chairman, and all those in favour.

That is unanimous.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:43:49

Obviously, he noted that he was not allowed to vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

I wish you the good rest of the day.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Ed Gemmell

Independent

View profile

Cllr Kathy Gibbon

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Phil Gomm

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Andy Huxley

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Llew Monger

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Gregory Smith

Green Party

View profile

Mr Chris Steuart

View profile

Mr Harry Thomas

View profile

Cllr Mark Turner

Independent

View profile

Cllr Jonathan Waters

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 hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Strategic Sites Committee - Thursday 11 June 2026, 10:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Strategic Sites CommitteeThursday, 11th June 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:00

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:01:54

Declan Cleary - 0:02:02

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:24

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:28

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:34

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:02:38

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:02:44

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:46

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:49

Cllr David Moore - 0:02:52

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:57

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:59

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:03:05

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:03:11

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:17

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:03:44

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:58

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:05:11

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:33

Declan Cleary - 0:09:51

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:33:02

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:33:11

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:35:07

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:35:15

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:38:26

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:10

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:39:41

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:40:16

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:40:30

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:40:37

Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:40:47

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:41:04

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:41:09

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:41:22

Public Speakers - 0:42:03

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:45:28

Public Speakers - 0:45:35

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:14

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:47:30

Public Speakers - 0:47:50

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:48:14

Public Speakers - 0:48:25

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:48:36

Public Speakers - 0:49:10

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:49:15

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:49:30

Public Speakers - 0:49:51

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:52:24

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:29

Public Speakers - 0:52:38

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:53:23

Public Speakers - 0:53:55

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:54:27

Cllr David Moore - 0:54:30

Public Speakers - 0:54:55

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:55:25

Public Speakers - 0:55:32

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:55:54

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:55:57

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:56:15

Public Speakers - 0:57:30

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:57:50

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:58:13

Public Speakers - 0:58:24

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:58:46

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:58:50

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:59:08

Strategic Sites Committee
Thursday, 11th June 2026 at 10:00am