East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 16 June 2026, 6:30pm

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 16th June 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore

1 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

Share this agenda point

Mr Charles Power
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Cole Caesar
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr David Moore
Alice Williams
Cllr David Moore

2 Apologies for absence

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr David Moore

4 Minutes of the previous meetings

Share this agenda point

Planning Applications

Share this agenda point

5 PL/20/0860/FA Land at The Rear of Five Acres & Trapps Lane and Pheasant Rise, Trapps Lane, Chesham

Share this agenda point

Mr Mike Shires
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Public Speaker
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr David Moore
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Public Speaker
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr David Moore

6 PL/25/2404/OA Land To The South East Of Whielden Street, Amersham

Share this agenda point

Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr David Moore
Alice Williams
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Speaker
Cllr Martin Tett
Speaker
Cllr Martin Tett
Speaker
Cllr Martin Tett
Speaker
Cllr Martin Tett
Speaker
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
public speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
public speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Speaker
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Speaker
Cllr Clive Harriss
Speaker
Cllr Matthew Hind
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr David Moore
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Ms. Teresa Coppock
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mr Charles Power
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kirsten Ashman
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Matthew Hind
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Teresa Coppock
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Rachel Marber
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Charles Power
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Ms. Rachel Marber
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr David Moore
Cllr David Moore

6 PL/25/2404/OA Land To The South East Of Whielden Street, Amersham

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Ms. Teresa Coppock
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore

7 PL/25/2252/FA Amersham and Chiltern Rugby Club, Ash Grove, Amersham

Share this agenda point

Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr David Moore
Alice Williams
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Cllr David Moore
public speaker
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speaker
public speaker
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Speaker
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Speaker
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Speaker
Cllr Mark Roberts
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Melanie Beech
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ms. Melanie Beech
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Ms. Melanie Beech
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Cllr Mark Roberts
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Mark Roberts
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ms. Melanie Beech
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Larisa Townsend
Cllr Martin Tett
Mr Mike Shires
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Wendy Matthews

8 PL/25/6029/FA Land at Old Jobs, Narcot Lane, Chalfont St Peter

Share this agenda point

Kirby MacInnis
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr David Moore
Kirby MacInnis
Cllr David Moore
Public Speaker
Speaker
Cllr David Moore
Kirby MacInnis
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Kirby MacInnis
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Mr Ben Robinson
Kirby MacInnis
Cllr David Moore
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Matthew Hind
Mr Ben Robinson
Cllr Wendy Matthews
Kirby MacInnis
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts

9 Date of next meeting

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore

10 Availability of Members attending Site Visits (if required)

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:00

Well, a very good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the East and South Buckinghamshire

Area Planning Committee.

Before we start the agenda, I just have a couple of housekeeping points.

For your information, this meeting is being filmed and webcasted, and by entering the

room you have consented to be filmed.

However, if members of the public do not wish to have their image captured, please advise

the committee clerk and we will help to sit you in a place where you will not be filmed.

The fire exits are located at the back of the chamber, down the main stairs and out

of the front doors. And please follow me and we will congregate outside in the space located

over the bridge towards the roundabout.

Now we have a full House of Business this evening and as we have that full agenda, can

I please respectfully ask members to keep their comments concise, thorough but concise,

so that we're able to conclude the meeting at a reasonable time

and we'll try our best to work through all the business for this evening,

but we will rain cheque after the second item

to ensure that everyone is kept up to speed

because we've got a lot of business to get through.

So, grateful for that.

1 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

So, we move to our first item on the agenda

and it is a new municipal year.

So, it is the appointment of a vice chairman,

which is in the gift of the chairman.

So I'd like to give that to Councillor Wendy Matthews in my position as chairman, as vice chairman.

So thank you very much and I'd like to thank Councillor Waters for his service in the last municipal year for this committee.

It's a pleasure working with you and I look forward to working with you still.

Before we move to the second item on the agenda, I just want to introduce everyone, especially so many who have come here today, both watching and in person.

So we'll go around the room starting with the officers, myself and then the members.

So my name is Councillor David Moore. I'm a ward councillor for the Farnhams of Stoke Poges

And I'm also chairman of the East and South Buckinghamshire area planning committee

Which covers the legacy Chilton districts and the South butts districts and now I pass over to on my left to ease

Good evening. I'm Teresa cough. I'm here tonight as a legal officer for this meeting

Hi, I'm Alice Williams, I'm the clerk of this committee

Hello everyone, I'm Mike Shires, one of the area team leaders in the planning department.

Mr Charles Power - 0:02:26

Good evening, my name is Charles Power, I'm the major development manager for Buckinghamshire.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 0:02:33

Evening, Rachel Marber, I'm the case officer for item six on the agenda.

Ben Robinson, I'm an area team leader in the planning department.

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:02:54

Councillor Larissa Townsend, ward member for Flacwell Heath and the Woburns.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:03:01

Mark Roberts, I'm the member for Amersham and Chesham Voice.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:03:05

Councillor Wendy Matthews, I'm the ward member for the Ivors.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:03:09

Councillor Martin Tett, Member for Little Chalfont and St Giles Ward.

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:03:16

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:03:19

I'm Councillor Jonathan Waters and Member for Penn, Tyler's Green and Loudwater.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:03:22

Good evening, I'm Councillor Clive Harris and Member for Longcrendon.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:03:27

I'm Councillor Matthew Hind and I'm Ward Member for the Missenden.

I'm Councillor Kirsten Ashman and I'm Ward Member for Bonham.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:03:35

Thank you. Thank you, members and officers.

Cllr David Moore - 0:03:38

We now move to item two, which is apologies for absence.

Thank you, Chairman.

Alice Williams - 0:03:42

I've received apologies from Councillor Thomas Hogg.

And that is all unless there are any that members would like to note.

None other. Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:03:53

I now move to agenda item three.

Does any member have any declaration of

2 Apologies for absence

3 Declarations of interest

interest they wish to make on any of the items?

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:04:04

Yes, I'd like to declare that I'm the board member

for Amersham Chesham -Bois, which is in relation

to items six and seven on the agenda.

I'd just like to clarify that when these schemes

were first became public, it was before I was a member

of council, before a member of this committee.

Since then as a board member, I've engaged with residents

and interested parties and listened to their views,

but I have maintained an open mind and refrained from expressing any view about

how the application should be determined and made clear my obligations as a

member of this committee so on that basis I will consider these items on

their planning merits and with an open mind Thank You councillor Roberts are

4 Minutes of the previous meetings

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:53

there any other declarations thank you very much we now move to item four

May have your approval to sign off the previous minutes on the meetings held on the 19th of May and of course the 20th May

Which was our council AGM

Agreed. Thank you very much

Planning Applications

5 PL/20/0860/FA Land at The Rear of Five Acres & Trapps Lane and Pheasant Rise, Trapps Lane, Chesham

We now move to our first planning application of the evening which is agenda item five, which is PL 2 0 0 8

6 0 FA land at the rear of five acres and traps Lane and

and pheasants rise on traps lane Chesham.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:05:28

So I'm gonna now move to Mike Shires

who will introduce this item, thank you.

Thank you, chair.

So this application was originally heard

by the former East Area Planning Committee

sometime back in January, 2021.

Members deferred the application for further investigation

of one main issue along with several other comments

which are all explained in the report in front of you.

However, before the application could be referred back

to the Planning Committee, the Chiltern Beechwood Special Area of Conservation, the SAC was

designated and that became a new material consideration. That has unfortunately resulted

in a long delay before the matter could be reported back to the Planning Committee whilst

the mitigation was resolved for the SAC. Now on a procedural note, deferred applications

can normally only be voted on by the members present at the original meeting, as there's

one member left from on the current committee this item is presented afresh

for consideration of all issues the report in front of you covers all the

material issues that are relevant and we've allowed public speaking for this

as well so that enables all members to vote on the application so turn into the

application itself it proposes the demolition of various garage blocks and

and the erection of four new dwellings,

that's two semi -detached pairs.

Paradigm is the applicant,

so the intention is for them to be affordable housing.

Since the previous meeting,

the applicant has undertaken much community involvement.

They've appointed a new parking consultant

and they've amended some of the designs

of the dwellings slightly.

So just to recap on a couple of the issues,

then I'll talk you through the rest

as we go through the plans.

In terms of parking, this application does result

to the loss of 25 garages.

At the previous planning committee when this was heard,

it was deferred primarily to look at the parking survey

which had been submitted.

Basically the applicant had submitted one at that stage

and members had a few queries about the data

that was contained within it.

However, we obviously used new parking standards now

and the Buckinghamshire wide parking standards

now apply to all developments.

The bottom line is all these garages are deficient in size, severely so actually.

So even a medium -sized car couldn't fit in, there'd be a struggle for even a small

car to fit in them. So technically these are not usable parking spaces, certainly

not policy compliant ones, therefore technically there's no loss of parking.

In terms of the four courts the applicant has explained that that's

private land and there's no legal right to park on those. Notwithstanding that the

applicant has done a new parking survey which has identified that only five

local people use the garages for parking a car. In terms of the parking for the

new dwellings the standard overall is eight spaces, two per dwelling. Those are

all provided within the site I'll show you those in a second. And the applicant

also proposed a further five communal spaces on the plans so even if you were

take into account the garages that are currently used for housing a car those

parking spaces are provided to allow for those displaced vehicles anyway. In terms

of biodiversity the application was submitted prior to the compulsory 10 %

biodiversity net gain coming into force so that doesn't apply. We have got a

suggested condition on there requiring a biodiversity enhancement scheme though.

In terms of updates since the report was published, there's been no further third -party comments.

We did have a late request from the NHS for a contribution related to local healthcare

facilities.

It was very low.

But in general terms, we don't seek those for minor developments.

And in any event, it wasn't made on the correct format and it wasn't properly evidenced.

Therefore, it does not meet the relevant seal tests.

And there's one minor clarification to the report in section 6 under the recommendation,

just to clarify the director's title is the Director of Planning, Growth and Sustainability.

So I'll take you through the plans.

On the screen is the site location plan.

So as you can see it's split between two garage sites within this residential block,

A to the north where there's two rows totalling 19 garages and B to the south where there's

the six. I've just coloured in the surrounding houses on that one just to

make it a bit easier to see and that is where the new dwellings are going so

the two semi -detached pairs and that's the official proposed site plan so they

relate well to the surrounding housing they reinforce the block with the houses

facing outwards as you can see. That's a more detailed site plan so site A

The top left shows the new pair of semi -detached dwellings with the parking areas to the rear.

In total, well just at the very top and the central, those are the additional five extra spaces

which are proposed. And then the bottom left, sorry bottom right, site B.

There's two parking spaces there as well. In terms of the elevations, they're extremely similar to

the prevailing style, scale, appearance and character of the surrounding

dwellings, similar height, so that's site A. Floor plans for site A, so they're both

two bed dwellings as indeed all four are. And then some CGI is just showing site A

there, that's the elevation from the rear facing the car part so there would

actually be higher fencing around the rear gardens but that's just showing for

illustration purposes so you can see the dwellings. Again site B, very similar

style of dwellings. Floor plans again very similar, both two bed dwellings.

CGI for site B, that replaces the smaller garage block of six garages.

Some photos, these are all recent, they were all taken yesterday. This is site A,

Looking at the double row of garages, the new dwelling would basically be sited centrally there

in front of the greenery and between those two rows of dwellings you can see.

That's along Trapps Lane to the north.

The dwellings all along that side of the block all have pedestrian accesses and steps onto the lane,

so similar arrangement is proposed for the two dwellings there.

This is the rather unsightly garage block on site B.

That's going to be replaced by a pair of semi -detached dwellings.

And again just showing a different angle so you can see the character of the surrounding dwellings,

which the new properties would respect.

And just showing the other angle as well.

And that's the rear of the same garage block, so that's the smaller row of six.

So the recommendation is essentially to delegate and defer to approve subject to the legal agreement.

Cllr David Moore - 0:13:05

Thanks Mike for your officer's presentation and report. We have three items, sorry three speakers

on this item. Councillor Dominique McFarland on Chesham town council you are the first up.

You have three minutes and by the way that's for every speaker on all the applications.

You have three minutes and once three minutes is up. We do have to cut the mic

So please stick to the three minutes much appreciated

So I'd like to invite councilman Farley and from Chesham town council to speak on this application

You have three minutes and you may start when ready

Public Speaker - 0:13:34

Thank You chair. Good evening councillors officers and members of the public

while Chesham town council generally supports the principle of

of brownfield and garage site regeneration.

Under policy CHESH1 of our adopted

Chesham neighbourhood plan,

that support is strictly conditional.

The policy explicitly states that development

must safeguard safe, healthy living conditions

and protect local infrastructure.

This proposal, we believe,

fails fundamentally on those counts.

Point one, the evidentiary flaw.

Unaccepted highways data. Members, the case officer's report relies heavily on the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the tilted balance.

But for a development to be sustainable it must have safe and acceptable infrastructure.

You are being asked today to approve a scheme based on parking data that the Council's own highways authority has explicitly refused to accept.

If you look at the highways consultation response from May 2026 in Appendix A,

the highways officer states in black and white and I quote,

I do still have some concerns about the latest parking survey.

The applicant has not fully addressed the concerns previously highlighted.

Therefore, I am not able to accept the findings. End of quote.

The report admits that the worst case scenario could displace up to 13 local vehicles

into the surrounding streets. Local residents counting cars on Sunday evenings have confirmed

exactly that reality, recording up to 13 cars parked on the garage forecourts alone. Traps Lane,

Five Acres and Pheasant Rise are narrow, heavily constrained and already at breaking point. To

wipe out 25 garages based on a survey that your own officers reject is an unacceptable risk to

safety and a direct violation of local plan policy TR 14.

Point 2 severe impact on residential amenity. This isn't a minor parking shortfall of two spaces as the applicant claims.

This is a severe threat to local infrastructure forcing up to 13 displaced vehicles into an already congested network will restrict access for emergency service vehicles and waste collection teams trying to navigate the area.

This severe displacement entirely contradicts objective 3 of our neighbourhood plan,

which demands that new developments improve movement and reduce traffic congestion, rather than exacerbating it.

The adverse impacts of this displacement on existing residents are demonstrable, severe,

and significantly outweigh the modest benefit of adding four units to the housing supply.

our conclusion chair a tilted balance does not mean a total collapse of

planning standards nor does it compel this committee to rubber -stamp a scheme

which thank you councilman following your time is up thank you though and we

Cllr David Moore - 0:16:37

are members will ask questions after all the speakers have been completed for the

state's sake of time so we now move to the next speaker Julie Stewart the

Public Speaker - 0:16:45

waterside Community Association who will speak as an object so you have three

minutes whenever you're ready. Thank you. I am speaking on the five acres planning

application on behalf of Waterside Community Association and wish to

highlight the following points. It is unrealistic for the traffic survey

report to state that the demolition of the garages and building of four houses

will have no impact on the current planning situation. The number of cars

parked on five acres and pheasant rises increased since 2020 and demolition of

the garages will only increase the problem. The number of cars parked on

five acres has reduced the road to a single lane. Visibility is often

compromised and navigating local streets has become increasingly dangerous. Cars

parked close to the junction of five acres and pheasant rise can make it

impossible to see what is coming down the hill. There are real concerns for

access of emergency vehicles. After walking around the area one Sunday

evening a resident reported that there were very few parking spaces available

on present rise and five acres this same resident counted 13 parked on two

garage ball courts we understand that a total of 13 spaces is to be provided

with a proposed development which is according to the parking survey it's

more than sufficient to accommodate any displaced cars however eight of these

spaces will be for the sole use of the four properties that leaves five spaces

to accommodate the cars displaced by the demolition of garages and those 13,

possibly more cars, parked on the garage forecourt.

Additionally, residents questioned the new parking survey when it states that

between 34 and 41 spaces existing on surrounding streets which is more than

sufficient to accommodate any displaced cars. It should be noted that in a

response received on the 22nd of May the Highways Officer stated,

I do not, sorry, I do still have some concerns about the latest parking survey.

The applicant has not fully addressed the concerns previously highlighted,

therefore I am not able to accept the findings. Surely these concerns must

carry some weight and be taken into consideration when discussing this

application. The transport statement points out that there is a comprehensive

network of footpaths on all roads surrounding the site that combine to

provide safe and continuous routes

to a range of local facilities.

Many residents would disagree with this.

Pheasant rise is an extremely steep

and certainly not a safe option for anyone who is disabled

or with mobility issues or parents pushing buggies

up and down the hill and can be quite dangerous.

This was proven only last week

when there was a serious collision

as proof of the roads and being currently dangerous. Thank you for

hearing our objection and I trust you will reject this planning application.

Cllr David Moore - 0:19:42

Thank you very much and now we move to the final speaker Martin Jones who is

Public Speaker - 0:19:49

the applicant. You have three minutes whenever you're ready. Thank you, good

evening chair, members of the committee and public. My name is Martin Jones I'm

the executive director for development and regeneration at Settle Paradigm. This

This proposal is not simply about buildings, it is about people.

At Settle Paradigm we believe that a home is far more than just four walls and roof.

It is where children grow up, families put down roots, residents should feel safe, secure

and supported.

Good quality housing underpins health, wellbeing and opportunity and that drives our mission

to provide homes that offer a strong foundation upon which people can build their lives.

We achieve this through investment in our existing housing stock, the delivery of new

homes and where homes and assets reach the end of their life, regeneration within communities.

Today more than 4 ,000 households in Buckinghamshire are waiting for an affordable home.

We own and manage over 13 ,000 homes across Buckinghamshire and we are committed to playing

our part as a major stakeholder within towns and communities throughout the county.

And it's against this backdrop we are particularly proud with this proposal that it delivers

truly affordable housing with homes intended for social rent built to modern accessibility

standards.

The proposal is located within an established community in a highly sustainable location.

It will meet identified local needs.

There is a sensitive redevelopment of brownfield land.

These homes will genuinely change lives for the better, support independence and give

those in housing greater security and confidence.

As has been said, this application has been for the authority for some time.

Indeed, I spoke at Planning Committee over five years ago when it was deferred.

We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by local residents and members throughout

process. We provided substantial additional evidence, made a number of

amendments to ensure that all matters raised have been comprehensively

addressed. So for example we've undertaken further work which confirms

garages are indeed unsuitable for modern vehicles and there is sufficient parking

capacity to accommodate displaced vehicles. And on this basis whilst the

authority, Highway Authority had some concerns, the authority has not objected

to this application. Therefore your planning officer has concluded again

this is a sustainable brownfield site acceptable in policy and all other

material considerations there is substantial public benefit that should

be afforded great weight I therefore ask members to resolve to grant plan

commission looking not only at the buildings proposed but at the positive

outcomes this scheme will deliver for local people so desperately in need of

Cllr David Moore - 0:22:11

modern affordable housing thank you thank you very much do members have any

questions of clarification relevant to the speeches made today from the three

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:22:20

speakers. Councillor Tett. Yes I'd just like to ask the applicant I mean you've

heard very strong views from the town council and from local residents

particularly around the parking and the traffic aspects would you like to

respond to those concerns because they are obviously very significant. Certainly

Public Speaker - 0:22:43

we recognise that the previous or the original application did have some

questions associated with the survey data which is why we then appointed new

consultants to go and revisit all of that work, including the methodology.

Further surveys have been done and it reconfirmed the principles that the

original application was submitted on, but clarified again that the garages

are not suitable for accommodation of vehicles and they are largely used for

storage. Indeed some of the garages, at least one of them, is used by people that

travel 19 miles to be able to use the garage. So these are not only for local

residents. In terms of displaced parking, as being said, we are providing

additional car parking over and above what is required. We're regularising the

parking and we have been working over the last few years to try and improve

with local councillors and local residents some of the local environment

to ensure that some of the fly tipping and some of the other issues that had

been a problem have been addressed.

Thank You councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:23:37

Yes I have a question for the applicant.

I was the member who actually was on the previous committee when this was

deferred. So I do remember Anne did the original site visit and did realise how little parking

there was then in the roads, let alone what you probably got now when a lot more people

work at home. And we went on a weekday, not on a weekend. And so the concerns were always

from that committee was about not just the cars which may well be in the garages, but

that there is a significant number of cars who are probably using your site without permission,

but they are locals and so they will have to find space. In terms of the review that

you did, how many parking spaces do you really believe are available, particularly if you're

looking at weekends, for those residents to actually find spaces? Or are we still going

Public Speaker - 0:24:42

have a problem. We're not going to deny that there is a capacity constraint at

times within the area and again we're not denying that aspect but the

methodology employed the process we've been through with the highway officers

has confirmed that again based on standard methodologies there is capacity

within the local network to accommodate what is needed in terms of those

vehicles that are going to be displaced and as I said I don't shy away from the

fact that car parking is an issue, it's an issue in very many areas and again

management and the respect that is afforded by neighbours in terms of

parking etc does need to be looked at and again we're willing to work with the

authority to look at a number of measures including on the surrounding

highway network which is adopted to see whether there are further things that

could be done but we believe that this proposal itself is only part of that and

again we're willing to work with the authority to to see what else can be

done beyond our immediate land ownership to improve the situation for local

Cllr David Moore - 0:25:39

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:25:42

residents. Just on that final point if I may, are there particular things that

you're thinking about within that? So I've got a better idea of what you mean

by you're working with highways. I can always ask the officers in a minute but in

terms of what sort of things that would be. So I've got an understanding of

whether that's significant or minor. Yeah so if you look at some of the

objections that have been raised to this application they talk about the

condition of the road. So again that's something which is beyond our remit in

in terms of maintaining the condition of the road.

There are issues in terms of parking,

in terms of where it's double yellowed,

or where it's on corners, et cetera.

Public Speaker - 0:26:11

There are opportunities there.

Potentially look at parking restrictions

in terms of things like double yellows

to try and make sure that there's safe access,

particularly for emergency vehicles.

Those are the sort of things that are beyond our remit

and our control, but we're willing to work with

the authority to see whether that can be improved

to ensure that, again, some of those accessibility,

the safe accessibility issues can be dealt with.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:26:33

Thank you.

Councillor Tett.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:26:38

Yes, just in the interest of balance, I'd like to ask maybe the representatives from

the town council a question so it's equal on both sides.

As somebody who lives pretty near Chesham and goes there fairly regularly, I mean, I'm

very well aware that in Chesham, there is a policy and a group called Brown Lock Green.

And they have advocated for many years now the policy of redeveloping brownfield land

as opposed to Greenfield sites.

The council has an enormous housing target

imposed by this government, which as you know,

it's still working its way through how that's gonna be met.

And there is opposition understandably

to release of Greenfield sites in the Chesham area.

How do you respond when the criticism is made

that when Brownfield sites come forward,

there's then automatically an objection,

which almost forces then,

you know, the reciprocal is it goes into the green belt.

So I just think in the interest of balance,

I've criticised the, I've questioned the applicant,

but I think also it would be good to hear your side

of whether this actually conforms

to the Chesham policy of Brown .Green.

Thank you, Councillor.

public speaker - 0:27:46

I mean, we do have a policy in Chesham Town Council

to support Brownfield and garage site regeneration.

It is known as Chesh1, C -E -S -H -1,

of our adopted Cheshire neighbourhood plan.

But in this case, we believe that the restricted parking

for the present residents outweighs the benefits

in this particular application.

The knock -on effect of the additional vehicle traffic,

finding a place to park, parking on pavements, etc.,

anti -social parking that might occur when visitors come,

is just creating a very unpleasant situation

for the residents of the three streets which are affected.

So whilst we do support brownfield development

and garage development to help meet the targets

that we are required to do so, in this occasion,

we don't feel that it meets the standards required.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions or clarification?

Cllr David Moore - 0:28:52

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:28:55

Councillor Matthews. Yes, I have a question for the applicant. The parking spaces that

you have identified within this application, are they going to be

specifically allocated to those those residents or are they just going to be open free for all?

Eight of the spaces will be for the residents of the new homes as per policy

and then the other five will be for the local community.

Cllr David Moore - 0:29:23

Thank you members if there are no other questions we now move to the officers thank you speakers

um does any uh member have any questions to the officers uh questions of clarification to what

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:29:35

we're looking at here materially council tech yes i i just like the officers to again i think

particularly with the public here um restate how this fits with our policy with regard to parking

because obviously that seems to be it's it seems to conform with the brown lot green policy

but the main objections quite understandably are around the parking

issues and the professional officers have assessed this against the council

standard so how does the parking meet other councils own policies with regard

Mr Mike Shires - 0:30:12

to parking requirement thank you for the question yes I mean when this came to

Planning Committee last time was the parking was a hot topic in terms of the

loss of the garages.

At that time there was a lot of discussion

about the parking surveys that had been carried out

and whether there was sufficient,

but A, how many of the garages were used,

and then whether there was spare capacity

on the surrounding streets,

and it was those sort of things

that members had queries about.

As I outlined earlier, since it came to committee last,

obviously we've got new local,

new Buckinghamshire wide parking standards,

and garages should measure six by three metres.

These are extremely deficient.

Actually, the doors are only 2 .1 metres wide.

The garages internally are 2 .4 by 4 .9,

so they're severely deficient

in terms of the current parking standards.

So they're not policy compliant parking spaces

is the bottom line really.

So there is no loss of any policy compliant parking spaces

with this application. If you were to take into account any displaced vehicles

that are currently there irrespective of the fact it's extremely difficult to get

them in and out of the garages, the parking survey data which the applicant

has updated for this committee cycle shows that five garages are

currently used for storage of cars by local occupiers. There's seven in total

still there but to live over two kilometres away so that's not sort of a

day -to -day use so it's five local people at store cars there at the moment and

obviously there are five extra spaces proposed under this application and also

regard to that the applicant has updated the parking survey of the surrounding

streets in accordance with the industry standard Lambeth methodology for

parking surveys where they've surveyed all the streets within 200 metres of the

application site and that shows 34 spaces exist in the vicinity a typical

night that they carried out in the early hours of the night now to ensure that

everyone is home and they look at spare parking capacity in the local area in

terms of just to clarify one thing that one of the speakers said as well the

last printed highway comments they did raise a concern that they weren't able

to accept the latest parking survey data that was for a very specific reason

because under the Lambeth methodology an applicant has to supply photographs of

all the spare in effect it's called curb length but in effect the spare spaces

sort of around the area and they hadn't supplied all the photos so it was

it's actually that technicality.

The applicant did then supply the photos

and highways verbally confirmed that that was fine.

So that point was addressed.

So I'm clear from the officer's reply,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:33:11

the current garages and they are old,

are not currently compliant

with the council's parking policy.

That a number of them are occupied, I understand,

by people who live some distance away.

and the new layout of the site, some reserved for new residents but some

reserved for other residents, all of those are policy compliant with the

current standards, is that correct? Okay that's very helpful clarification, thank

you. Thank you, Councillor Tett. Before I go to Councillor, I was just going to add on to

Cllr David Moore - 0:33:47

what Councillor Tett said. You mentioned, you partially answered this, how the

latest comments said part of the survey wasn't fully accepted so why would you

say is no objection of the final conclusion if it wasn't fully accepted

you said mention there wasn't some photographs aren't submitted I suppose

just before coming to that I would again just emphasise the fact that none of

these are policy compliant parking spaces so that that really is the bottom

line I can't emphasise that enough but in terms of the highways comments yes

the last written comments was that they still had some concerns about the data

And as I mentioned, it was purely the technicality

that not all the photographs to in effect prove

that there were a spare capacity

on the surrounding streets had been submitted,

which the applicant then submitted

and Highways Office have verbally confirmed that was fine.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:34:38

Yeah, I was just interested in the comments

that had been raised by the representative

from Chesham Town Council about the neighbourhood plan,

which obviously has been relatively recently become in effect.

reference to policies Chesh 1 and Chesh 3, I think.

I personally am not familiar with that,

but I can't find reference in the case officer report

about that, so I was wondering if you can give us

some information about the alignment of this application

to the neighbourhood plan.

Can you just reiterate which policy was missing?

Chesh, the Chesham neighbourhood plan,

I think it was Chesh one and Chesh three was mentioned but I can't find

reference to that in the case officer report but maybe I'm looking in the

wrong place I'm just gonna come back to and I what whilst Mike just goes through

the documents and we'll go back to a question council Roberts and council

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:37

waters I think my main question was answered because I was concerned that an

officer had said it in terms of highways that they they still had concerns about

but obviously what we've been told is the extra information

and the original committee and why this has been deferred

is basically purely about this parking, displaced parking.

That was the deferment, not for any other reason.

It wasn't against the additional social housing

or use of brownfield sites.

It was very much about the parking

and additional information and the very poor report

that had been put forward at that stage.

So obviously it's taken a long time,

but I think it's good that we've actually

had clarification because I think the question I would ask is the applicant

alluded to additional opportunity to improve the situation for parking

particularly when they're talking about emergency services getting up there

junctions etc. Probably additional W on the lines may or may not help that might

take parking spaces away so that might actually reduce things so I don't know

what the officers have actually discussed

and what additional improvements

actually are really being considered.

It would be good to know what they are.

Thank you, Councillor.

Cllr David Moore - 0:36:55

So that's helpful as you were the sole member

at the time of the original application.

I'm just gonna...

Go back to Councillor Roberts' question.

Just looked up the neighbourhood plan policies.

Chesh 1 is actually regarding employment sites.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:37:21

Was it definitely that one?

Because I can't see how it's got any relevance.

I thought that was the point that the Speaker had raised.

Cllr David Moore - 0:37:35

public speaker - 0:37:47

Councillor McFarland, which policy did you cite in your speech?

My information from colleagues is that it's Cheshwan but I am just confirming that as we speak.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:38:00

the

Maybe on the more general point then, can you just articulate

around how this is aligned with the Cheshire neighbourhood plan

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:38:16

which has been adopted more recently than the original

application?

Mr Mike Shires - 0:38:24

Yes, we have set out in the report, obviously that is one of the changed circumstances,

the policy context since it came to committee last time, so the Chesham neighbourhood plan

has been adopted.

Whilst Chesh 1 doesn't seem to have any relevance because that relates to employment sites,

we have got a section in the report about the two in particular that do have relevance,

that's Cheshire 5, which is to do with the design character areas, so that's appraised in the report,

which refers in turn to the Chiltern and South Bucks Townscape Character Study.

So we've picked out the most important elements of the character of this particular area and discussed how it meets those.

And then the other relevant one is Cheshire 12, which is, basically reiterates our position with regards to the Chiltern Beechwood sack and the need for mitigation.

So those two are referenced in the report.

So from your perspective, the neighbour plan requirements

have been satisfied?

Yes.

Thank you, any other questions to the officers?

Councillor Ashman and then Councillor Harris.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:39:33

Thank you, so from what I could see,

there were eight non -responses to the survey.

In the previous survey where a response hadn't been received

from a garage owner there was a risk recognised that that person could be using it to store a car but

It was unknown whereas in the latest survey. It looks like they've assumed that those eight non responses

Are not relevant. Why is that?

Mr Mike Shires - 0:40:01

So in paragraph 4 .5 of a report on page 13 that should cover the various sort of

figures and data used for parking in terms of the new survey that was done.

Again I can't emphasise enough that the position in terms of parking is that

there's no loss of policy compliant parking with this application but in

of the new survey that was carried out, even though technically it didn't need

to be, of the 25 garages, seven are used to park cars, two of which are not from

local people at all, so there's five local people parked cars there. Rest are

used either by paradigm or storage. No response was received from eight

occupiers. So in a worst -case scenario, despite the fact that again these aren't

policy compliance bases the worst -case scenario is there could be it was it

five plus eight in total space garages with cars in them but then we come back

to the fact that there are five extra spaces provided under this park and

planning application and there's at least capacity for 34 spaces and the

surrounding streets as per the survey that was done okay so there's an

displaced, that eight plus five.

Do you mind repeating your question?

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:41:40

Sorry, I think I was reading what you said,

but if worst case scenario is if there are another eight

cars, then eight plus five is this 13 cars potentially

being displaced, but there's only five additional spaces.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:41:54

That is, yes, again, the official, in terms of policies,

obviously there is no loss of any policy compliance basis,

but in practical terms yes worst case scenario is 13 and then we come back to

the five extra spaces provided communities within this block as I

showed you on the plans plus the spare capacity on surrounding streets which is

at least 34 spaces Thank You councillor Harris then councillor Townsend thanks

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:42:22

for us chairman was on parking dimensions I managed to answer it from

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:42:29

website thanks thank you cancer Townsend thank you I think you mentioned that the

highways officer has subsequently accepted that they are happy with the

report because of photographs received is there an update anywhere confirming

that do we have that in writing or is that are we just going on what you're

In a word, no.

Mr Mike Shires - 0:42:50

The last written comments from the Highway Officer did identify the concern,

as I said, in terms of the technicality of...

Basically, everything was fine with the survey in terms of the methodology that had been carried out,

but it was just missing some of the appendices in terms of the photographs to, like I say,

to prove that there were sufficient spaces on the surrounding streets.

So as soon as the applicant realised that they sent the photos in and they were there,

they'd just been admitted from the report when it was submitted.

So I spoke to the highways officer following that and they confirmed that addressed the

problem so that was fully compliant.

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:43:32

So in lieu of written confirmation are we entitled to assume that the highways officer

is okay with that or do we have to go with what's been provided?

Mr Mike Shires - 0:43:43

Ordinarily for an application obviously I'd like something in writing from the

Highways Office to confirm the final position but in this

case didn't think it was wholly necessary given the fact that there is

no loss of any policy compliant parking spaces so we're coming sort of back to

that point which I know I keep emphasising it but that is the point in

terms of parking policies. I suppose the no objection you would argue is

Cllr David Moore - 0:44:07

strengthened by what was being corrected so yeah thank you

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:14

no more council Matthews thank you as far as I can see that the the

application that's in front of us provides sufficient parking spaces for

that application so could the officer give us an indication of how reasonable

is it to expect that particular application to address the general

parking issues that there appear to be in the area would that be considered

reasonable

could you repeat the last bit of your question before Mike yeah would the the

general would it would the applicant be expected to address the parking the

general parking issues that there appear to be in the area would that be

reasonable

Mr Mike Shires - 0:45:04

Yes, I mean obviously there are, you know, from the representations there are parking

issues in the wider area, but very aware of that and the Highways Officer is to know their

various responses that they've submitted.

Obviously this application can't solve existing problems.

What we need to do is ensure that the level of space is provided for the new dwellings

is policy compliant, which it is in terms of the number and the size of those.

And then if you like the extra five spaces are the sort of bonus on top of that which can be weighed into the balance

even though technically they're not required.

Cllr David Moore - 0:45:41

Thank you very much. If there are no other questions, I think we will move to

the debate. Oh, you've got more. Yeah.

Just a very quick one just to confirm that the

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:45:47

the legal agreement is only about the sang

element is it so that's the only element that's included in the in the legal

agreement to be addressed in the legal agreement

Mr Mike Shires - 0:46:08

yep the full recommendations on page 9 isn't it so the legal agreement

previously when it came to committee the recommendation was just a straight

conditional permission but since the sack has arisen it obviously needs to be

deferred and delegated you know if you vote with the recommendation so the

section 106 is regarding the sack mitigation thank you thank you last two

questions and then we'll move on is this about the policy clarification yes it is

Public Speaker - 0:46:35

public speaker - 0:46:37

to get you made thank you so chesham five is our policy on brown for

development my apologies for the typo and confusion thanks for the

clarification very helpful

That's Cheshire 5, that's the policy.

Cllr David Moore - 0:46:45

Councillor Ashman and then Councillor Hyde.

Did you have your hand up?

Thank you, I think this is a follow on

from Councillor Matthews' question.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:46:59

So although I recognise that a new application

only has to provide parking for their own purposes,

they would not obviously be resolving

historic parking issues.

Presumably the garage blocks that are there

were originally put in place as part of original planning applications for the other properties and was seen as necessary to resolve parking issues for

those

So by taking those away it does introduce new parking issues

essentially like

Superceding the original parking provision. So how does that work in line with policy and what's required from this new application?

To be honest, the existing garages due to their size have largely become redundant as

evidenced by the parking survey data both last time and the renewed data here.

So the situation in terms of the locality where people park currently, it's mainly sort

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:47:59

of the, I'll just show you the, yeah sort of in the centre of that block is a large

communal parking area so a lot of people sort of park in there at the moment and

Mr Mike Shires - 0:48:08

then the surrounding streets also accommodate quite a lot of on -street

parking so in terms of where people park that that is where they park currently

just to add one clarification to that as well when it came to committee last and

someone mentioned emergency access as well it was assumed in the original

parking data that cars parked along both sides of some of the streets where it's

reality they don't because they're not wide enough cars park on just one side

so the parking survey is fully accurate and sort of reflects that in terms of

the capacity and also demonstrates emergency vehicle access as well for

info

Cllr David Moore - 0:48:50

thank you very much there no more questions we now move to the debate of

members have any points to make or any proposals on this application

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:49:00

Councillor Tett. Yeah I mean I'm I'm torn on this a bit if I'm frank with you

because I absolutely understand the strength of feeling from local residents.

What I have to weigh in the balance is first of all the brown not green

argument because if these houses proposed houses displaced it means more

pressure on the green belt potentially around Chesham. Secondly these garages as

I understand it from the officers comments in the report are old garages

that actually don't meet modern standards.

They're used a lot.

There are many of them around

the Chiltern District Council,

former Chiltern District Council area,

some quite close to where I live,

which are frankly obsolete.

I mean, they're not used for cars now.

They were designed for minis in the 1100s

and actually don't fit modern cars at all

and quite often are just used for storage.

So I'm not convinced that we're losing much

in the way of parking that's of a modern standard.

And it does seem as if we're gaining affordable housing

and we're gaining a net gain of parking spaces.

So there is parking for the new houses

and there is new modern standard parking

for local residents.

So I completely do not want to add to the problems

in this area, but it does feel to me

that it ticks the brown, not green box.

And also, overall, there is a gain

in modern standard parking in the area.

So I'm minded at the moment

to move towards accepting this recommendation.

But I completely understand the local angst on this.

But I'd like to obviously hear the rest of the debate.

Councillor Waters.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think it's, what's come from the offices,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:50:57

and we know, a lot of these garage sites are obsolete.

You know, cars, since they've widened for safety reasons,

you hardly find any cars that will fit them.

And I think a valid point was made,

obviously, they were originally designed

to support the other housing which were in these areas,

but actually for a long time,

largely have not been doing that,

because there are only a handful of people using them.

The point which doesn't carry a lot of weight but is the reality is that the open spaces

have been being used for parking, though not authorised parking, and that is what will

spill over and probably is difficult to actually get a number to even if it's sitting in the

garages.

The roads there will have pressure on them.

It's very interesting the number of spaces and what we have to go with, unfortunately,

is we will have to go with some of the stats that have been provided and the information

and the highways if they are now saying that they are happy with what was provided.

That is important.

I will say we have asked for a highways officer to be at the meeting and we have asked for

this item and another item, but again, once again,

no highways officer is here.

It would have helped this debate much quicker

because the reason that this was being brought back

for a deferred item was on highways issues.

So actually not to be attending, can you please note

that is not acceptable to committee members

when that is, and then they could have answered

saying actually you've got the information now,

we are totally happy with the analysis.

What we're having to do now is take the word of trusted officers, but it's a verbal discussion

that's taken place, nothing in writing that we can say that that report is, and seeing

it's the crux of the item to say actually the assessments that they've done will mean

that there's plenty of room for displaced vehicles.

So that's the issue if there's doubt about this, that's the key thing.

I think in terms of social housing,

the design of the housing, all of that,

that is not really the issue,

never was the issue with the deferment.

So it's really just having a level of comfort

that we've got the right information

that we are not gonna create a massive disaster

for the residents in the area.

And that's what would've been really good

if we'd had highways here.

Thank you, Councillor Waterson.

I appreciate it's the sole member

who looked at this original application

and how highways is a major material consideration here.

And it would be good to see that update in writing.

I will do share that.

Councillor Roberts.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:53:48

I have a lot of sympathy with the parking issue

in this area and the points that have been raised.

I mean, people who live in areas like this

tend to find that they're blighted

by unauthorised parking around the streets.

But we're here to look at the planning issue

and from a planning perspective,

if there weren't parking issues in this area

and we were looking at this application,

we would be looking at it as an infill application

of four new dwellings and on that basis,

we would probably be looking at approving it

on the basis that it's a beneficial contribution

to the target and adding to the street scene in those areas

and providing compliant parking areas.

On the other hand, is it an obligation of this application

to provide and address the parking issue?

I tend to think the question is that we don't want it

to make it worse and I think the evidence is in front of her shows that

it doesn't make it worse so I'd be minded to approve it this and go with

the officers recommendation Thank You councillor Roberts are you putting a

Cllr David Moore - 0:55:13

propose you proposing on the top onto the table I will come to the other

speakers or would you want I think I'd like to hear yeah

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:55:25

others things first. Councillor Ashman and then Councillor Hyde. My observation would be that

there's potentially a policy gap when it comes to these Brownfield garage sites. I

think we've recognised, was only heard from the officers and recognise as a

committee that a lot of these garage blocks are no longer fit for purpose but

they were originally designed for when there are many less cars on the road to

provide parking for the existing buildings.

So the fact that they're no longer fit for purpose

does not resolve the issue that those houses

need parking spaces.

And so what we see is the cars spill over onto the roads.

The fact that that site then becomes available

for further housing and further parking for those houses

does not resolve the issue that we've lost

the original parking and it's not got anywhere to go.

So I do feel potentially there's something

for the council to look at as to what we do with,

what will be numerous sites across the county

where there's potentially a bit of a policy gap.

In terms of the highway report,

and I recognise Councillor Waters' comments around it

would have been helpful to have further information

from the highways officer,

because I'm still not convinced by the report,

and I think we've heard here informally

that while there may be a lack of compliant spaces

being lost, there is definitely a parking issue,

and I think people recognise that.

Looking at the appendix that was supposed to support

the survey, it certainly looks clear to me

that there is a parking issue and that hasn't come through

in any of the survey data or the report.

But you can clearly see there, cars blocking each other in,

cars on the pavement, cars parking across junctions.

People don't park there unless they've got

nowhere else to go.

So to say that there's adequate space

and that it can absorb further cars,

I don't that doesn't correlate with what I've seen on that basis I recognise

that obviously this fell last time on the highway state and I'm not really

convinced that it's been addressed my only caveat would be that we still have

the tilted balance to contend with and where that lands is I'm not sure thank

Cllr David Moore - 0:57:32

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:57:37

you thank you councillor Hein then councillor

waiting new homes within Buckinghamshire at the moment and I understand that it's

possible for the applicant to emphasise or put emphasis on people who had

connexions with Chesham to perhaps be allocated these new homes and if that

was the case then I think I'd be more minded to support it if I felt that

the accommodations being developed were allocated to people waiting on

the housing list who had attachments to Chesham. Thank You

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:58:18

Councillor Townsend. Thank you I think I share a lot of the views expressed by my

fellow councillors. It's clear here that there is a mismatch between the reality

and the policy. I hear what you're saying you know the the garages don't comply

with our new parking standards but I also hear what residents are saying and

and the evidence that has been put before us

that parking is an issue here.

Nevertheless, it's the policy and your guidance

that we have to be guided by

and also the advice of our Highways Officer.

I also share Councillor Waters' frustrations

about the lack of a Highways Officer here tonight,

particularly in relation to the next applications.

I think it would have been very helpful

and it's something that I've expressed

on previous planning committees.

So I think it's probably felt by a number of us here.

Thank you, Councillor Townsend.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:59:17

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Just looking on Google Earth here at the garages,

and it's quite clear they're to rent to anyone, any comers.

I think that realistically,

if they're to be replaced with housing as you described,

then that's something we should very much be supporting.

I think also the regularisation that these two particular areas within the site will display some of the less

Well less badly placed parking shall I say

And improve that improve the site overall. So I've moved that we go with the officers recommendation to approve

Is that a proposal?

Okay. Thank you and the seconded from Councillor Roberts. Is there any other proposal?

beyond the proposal to approve proposed by Councillor Harris and seconded by

Councillor Roberts. Okay we move to a vote. All in favour of the proposal to

accept the officer's recommendations? All those against? And abstentions? That item

is passed. Thank you members, thank you officers, thank you speakers and members

Cllr David Moore - 1:00:30

of the public. We now move to agenda item 6 which is PL 252404 OA

outline application land to the southeast of Wilden Street in

Amersham. I'm going to now hand over to Rachel they're just going to swap with

Mike who will introduce the item whenever you're ready. Thank you.

6 PL/25/2404/OA Land To The South East Of Whielden Street, Amersham

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:01:15

Thank you.

of the application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So this application is an

outline application with all

matters reserved and those

reserve matters include scale,

layout, access, landscaping and

appearance.

With the principle of

development to establish 45

dwellings on the site.

The application is a

application is before committee

because it's been called in by

the two board members, well two

of the board members and the

reason for the call in is set

out within the committee report.

So moving on to the location of

the application site. The site

is outlined in red. On this

location plan you can see it's

on the outskirts of Amersham

Old Town located to the east of

the Amersham Hospital located opposite. The A413 runs to the rear boundary of the site

and it comprises some 3 .7 hectares of open countryside. So this is just showing the planning

constraints. So you can see in the green colour that's Amersham Old Town Conservation Area,

which this site which is outlined in blue turquoise in this instance allies immediately adjacent to

And you can also see the list of buildings for the immediate fixinity and those are shown in yellow

You've also got

public rights -of -way dissecting the site and those are shown in brown and

Then the hashed line is actually the Chilton beaetred sack

Zone of influence and you can see that just runs up to the cusp of the site but does not include the application site itself

the site falls within the Chilterns national landscape and

designated greenbelt

So just bear with me here because I'm going to talk through the grey about policy which I'm sure you were all aware

but

Paragraph 155 states that some forms of developments such as new homes are not

inappropriate development in the green belt provided they meet the following

criteria A to D. The first criteria is it will utilise grey belt land and will not

fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining green belt across the area

of the plan. So I've put just below criteria the definition of grey belt and

and that includes land which is not strongly performing

against purposes A, B, or D.

As part of the background evidence for the local plan

for the Chiltern and South Bucks,

we've drawn a local plan

and the new Buckinghamshire local plan.

This site was assessed in some capacity.

In both assessments, it was concluded

as not performing strongly against those purposes.

The next caveat is that it does fall

within definition of grey belt provided there are no assets or areas and for no seven which provide a strong reason for refusal

And I've set out on my committee report that I do not consider

Those footnote seven issues to provide a strong reason for refusal

And then moving on to criteria B

It's a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development and footnote 56 there

If footnote 56 which is just highlighted there says that lack of five -year housing land supply meets that criteria

Criteria C is that the demand we were located in sustainable location. I

Consider a site is in a stable location. It's got close access to old Amazon services and facilities

Opposite the hospital and is also good public transport connexions to the site

And then criteria D says the post development must meet the golden rules

Which I've set out on this slide and essentially the first golden rule is providing affordable housing

Which in this case is 50 % affordable housing which the site delivers

Provide necessary improvements to local and national infrastructure

So I will discuss it later in my presentation the site will secure

public rights -of -way improvements, highway improvements and two criteria

seat open space improvements. So to my mind it also meets the golden rules and

therefore I consider it to be grey belt.

So just moving on then to the site photos. Here I'm showing site access

location off Weldon Street and then moving into the site itself. I'm just

showing what the characteristics on the undeveloped site and also just the

topography and sloping nature of the site. And then just moving to some views

so you can see Amersham Hospital from this photo, Diamond Court which is a

recent residential development from this photo and then you can see start

to see the back of the properties on Wilden Street on this photo but I've got

a bit of a closer view here.

We can see the rear of those properties.

And then just a view at the very northern tip of the site,

facing Wilden Green, and then turning slightly east

to face towards Pickett's End.

So with the application, a zone -authoritical visibility

was submitted.

And this shows the visual extent of the development area.

So what this slide shows is the bits highlighted in solid yellow is where the

development will be visible from and then the bits which are in hash yellow

would be somewhat visible but maybe intervening because of landscaping. So

I've just got some slides to take you through these viewpoints just to show you

in reality. So this is from the Broadway. You can see I've put a little Google Maps

maps person pointing towards the site so you can see the perspective of the site in relation to this photo and you can see

the site in the foreground between the gaps between buildings

And then as you move along towards Amersham and move along Amersham High Street

You can see the development gets more dense still facing towards the site but limited views of the site itself

And then turning up Weldon Street

understanding by number 30 and you can see the site in the foreground and

again this is standing by Crown House and Barnes which is the list of building

the conservation officer has identified the most harm to and you can see the

site between the built form gaps there and again a view of the site from

He's just travelling up Wilden Street, just showing views towards the site which is behind that landscaping belt.

I've just done one in the other direction to show views from that direction as well.

And then a view from Pickett's Orchard and the public right of way there, so you can see the landscape vegetation to the site and the landscape vegetation to the site.

and the landscaping to the built form and just the perspective from there.

And then moving to where the site is more visible. So these are the

more distant views from the surrounding hillside of Amersham. So this viewpoint is standing in

an old Amersham from old Amersham viewpoint. So if you can see my mouse that's where this

viewpoints taken from and the application site would comprises these open fields, which you can see in the foreground there.

And then this is her from her binds to trail which this viewpoint is here

And then the application sites falls here

You can't speak at this moment the officers presentation, thank you

And then this is a viewpoint from behind

Amersham Hospital and Gil was Scott close

so this is the location here and you can see the application site in the foreground of the

Wurden Street built form here

So as the application is an outline form,

what we have to guide the development coming forward

is perimeter plans, which establish a set of guidelines.

So this is one perimeter plan,

which establishes vehicle access off Wilden Street here,

green open space to this side of the development site,

and then this brown beige colour

establishes the developable area,

and that sets a guide of two buildings,

storey maximum height. And then this plan builds upon those principles, shows where

landscaping will be placed in the hatched areas, indicates existing public

rights -of -way to be retained in terms of access points into the site and also

shows indicative locations for open space, suds and play areas. And there's

also an addictive master plan just to give an indication of how a development

can be laid out on the site to the quantum proposed and this follows the

established perimeter plan principles I just showed which moves me on to the

only detailed matter before us for consideration which is the vehicle or

access off Wilden Street so you can see here it's the form of priority junction

with

progesterone footpath which

joins onto the existing footpath of Weldon Street

as a result of the introduction of this access five

Parking bays along Weldon Street will be removed

And the highways officer has requested details by condition to show the relocation and re -provision of these in full

So moving on to the draught test of terms with Section 106 agreement.

Section 106 agreement was secure 50 % affordable housing,

public rights of way improvements to public rights of way which intersect the site,

public open space, highway improvements which mostly pertain to bus transportation improvements,

and monitoring, service management, and a healthcare contribution.

So the application is recommended for delegation to view two approvals

subject to the Section 106 agreement.

And this recommendation has been made with line to paragraph 11 of the MPPF,

which states where development plan is not up to date to grant permission

where no footnote seven reasons for refusal have been found

and the benefits associated with the development have been met.

been found to outweigh any adverse impacts. Thank you. Thank you Rachel for

your presentation and report. We now move to the four speakers of this item and

like before you will be able to speak for three minutes and then members if

they so wish will ask you any potential questions of clarification. We now move

Cllr David Moore - 1:13:38

to our first speaker Councillor Kelly Thornton. Sadly she can't join us today

Alice Williams - 1:13:45

but I have agreed that her statement is to be read out by the clerk. Thank you.

Thank you. Chairman, members, this is a proposal for up to 45 homes on open land outside the

settlement boundary within the metropolitan green belt wholly within the Chilterns National

Landscape and immediately joining the old Amersham Conservation Area and nearby listed

buildings. The officer report accepts that harm exists, harm to heritage, harm to local

landscape character, harm to ecology and harm to the Chilterns national landscape.

The issue before members is therefore not whether there is

harm, there is. The issue is whether that harm is outweighed. I do not believe that

it is. First the green belt. The applicant's case relies heavily on the

argument that this site should now be treated as grey belt but I ask members

simple question if open land beside the old Amersham conservation area within

the Chilterns national landscape forming part of the open hillside setting of a

historic town is grey belts then what green belt land in old Amersham is not

the MPPF does not say that all green belt land becomes grey belts simply

because housing is needed I have no doubt that affordable sustainable

housing is needed. The NPPF definition of grey belt excludes land which strongly

contributes to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

Members must therefore ask whether a site that the council's own conservation

specialist describes as part of the rural backdrop and historic setting of

old Amersham can properly be regarded as grey belt. Old Amersham is a historic

town. This hillside forms part of its setting. The council's own report

identifies harm to that setting. Secondly, heritage. The council's own conservation

specialist concludes that this site forms part of the rural backdrop and

historic agricultural setting of Old Amersham and that development would harm

the setting of listed buildings and the character of the conservation area. That

engages sections 66 and 72 of the planning listed buildings and

Conservation Areas Act 1990.

Those statutory duties require members

to give considerable importance and weight to heritage harm.

Finally, section 38 .6 of the Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

requires planning decisions to be made in accordance

with the development plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise.

In my view, the housing benefits and grey belt arguments

are not sufficient to outweigh the acknowledged harm

to the green belt, the national landscape, the conservation area and nearby

heritage assets. For those reasons I urge members to refuse this application.

However, if members are not minded to refuse today then I ask that they defer

determination giving the sensitivity of the site the continuing concerns raised

regarding ecology and public rights -of -way.

Thank you. We now move to Councillor James Wilkinson of

Cllr David Moore - 1:16:55

Amersham town council. You have three minutes and you may begin when ready.

Public Speaker - 1:17:01

Good evening everybody. I'm an Amersham town councillor. I'm asking you to refuse

this application and I want to focus on the single issue the whole

recommendation rests on. The classification of Greybelt. This land is

currently Greenbelt. It lies within the Chiltern National Landscape. It sits on

the edge of the old Amersham Old Town Conservation Area surrounded by listed

buildings. The only way this recommendation reaches approval is by

reclassifying the site as grey belt because that removes the green belt

protection and triggers the presumption to approve. But the government's own

definition is clear land cannot be grey belt if national landscape or heritage

protection gives a strong reason for refusal. So it comes down to one question

is the harm here strong enough to count? The officer's report answers this it

It calls the visual harm major adverse.

It gives the heritage harm great weight.

The Chilterns Conservation Board, the statutory body

for the national landscape, objects.

And most telling of all, the council's own 2026 Green Belt

assessment found that this very parcel is not

grey belt precisely because it falls

within the national landscape.

The officer has set this finding aside.

You do not have to.

Whether 45 houses or nearly 4 hectares of open countryside inside a national landscape

is a major development is your judgement to make, not the officers.

The officers own finding of major adverse harm tells you that it is.

And for major development in a national landscape, national policy says refuse, unless there

are exceptional circumstances.

A housing shortfall which exists across the whole country is not an exceptional circumstance

for building over a protected landscape.

Consider the precedent.

If this much harm to a national landscape and a conservation area is not strong enough

to count, then any green -built site on the edge of any town can be reclassified as greybelt

and built upon.

because there is always a shortfall and harm could always be considered moderate.

That hollows out the protection of the entire Chiltons.

Quiet, green, walkable space like this isn't a luxury, it's where we go to breathe and reset.

Once it's built on, no planning condition brings it back.

Please refuse this application and protect the principle that a national landscape,

heritage protection and conservation area actually means something. Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 1:19:47

Thank you very much. We now move to our next speaker who is Bethany King who is

public speaker - 1:19:56

speaking as an objector. You have three minutes. I represent a large group of

real local residents who strongly oppose this housing development and feel their

concerns are not represented or acknowledged in the applications

numerous reports. Old Amersham is a very important historical Saxon village which

remains largely unchanged and undeveloped. It sits in the Chiltern

National landscape whose character or appearance is desirable to preserve or

enhance with Buckinghamshire's local plan committed to protecting the county's

rural character and valued landscapes. A modern 45 house estate would be

urbanisation of Old Amersham to a devastating and detrimental extent.

Critically the site's elevated position means the development would be highly

visible within a cherished and iconic vista that features prominently in historical paintings,

TV, films, tourist information and social media.

The officer's report identifies harm to the conservation area, adjacent heritage assets,

ecology and local landscape character, but we believe it vastly underestimates the significance

of harm felt locally.

The estate will directly overlook multiple existing and listed properties resulting in

an extensive loss of privacy with screening measures considered inadequate.

The significant and permanent increase in noise, traffic and light pollution

both during and after construction is unimaginable. The failure to undertake an

environmental impact assessment is unacceptable. The site's wide array of

vegetation habitats and wildlife groups were largely removed in April for

archeological surveys. But the site does not fall within any definition of grey

belt land supported by the Bucks plan in March defining it as green belt. The

proposed biodiversity measures are inadequate and we refute the claim that

the land can no longer be used for agricultural purposes. Flooding already

exists with significant drainage issues occurring often on Wheldon Street and

Wheldon Green. Replacing permeable land with roads, roofs and hard surfaces

further exacerbates this risk. So we strongly agree with the Bucks plans

clear conclusion the site is unsuitable for development due to the unacceptable

harm it would cause to heritage landscapes and infrastructure. We do not

believe that vehicular access opposite the hospital is the only matter for

detailed consideration, rather further loss of scarce parking, 300 additional

daily car journeys and single lane traffic points make the principle of

this application unacceptable. Only one of the three golden rules of affordable

housing is being met and while we applaud the NPPF's overall plans and

accept that Buckinghamshire must meet these targets, they must make a valuable

difference. But we strongly believe on balance the irreversible landscape and

heritage harm to Old Amersham and its social fabric is considerably

underestimated in the reports for a proposal which equates to less than 0 .05 %

of your housing targets. Preserving this beautiful, historically

important town. Unique views, character and integrity compels us to explicitly oppose

the plans and respectfully request you reject this proposal.

Cllr David Moore - 1:22:56

Thank you very much. We now move to Millie Dodd who is representing Darren Glasgow who

is a supporter of this application. You have three minutes whenever you're ready.

Thank you, good evening. My name is Millie Dodd and I'm an Account Director at Shared

Voice. Our approach ensures that engagement around new housing is representative by reaching

Speaker - 1:23:18

people who don't usually participate in planning consultations. National polling

consistently shows that the majority of people support building new homes in

their area but their voice is already heard in the planning process. Those who

oppose applications have every right to make their views known but people who

support new homes, often because they or their families need them, deserve to be

heard too. As part of this we work with Horage Land, a Buckinghamshire based SME

during this application to hear directly from local residents about the housing

pressures they're facing and why they support the plans. As a result 30 letters

of support was submitted to the planning portal. These letters reflect that

broader engagement. They come from individuals who've taken the time to

respond in their own words and feel that developments are important for people in

housing need locally. The message from supporters was clear this part of

Buckinghamshire needs more homes so that local people, families and future

generations concern the communities they grew up in and value. Katie is a 37 year

private renter who lives a 10 -minute drive from the site and hopes to own her own home.

She said, I'm supporting the plans because I don't want to have to move away from the area

because we can't afford to buy and all of my family are here. And it's not just young

professionals who feel this way. Many parents and grandparents spoke about their concerns for their

children and grandchildren being able to afford independence in the area they grew up in.

Darren is a local parent and homeowner. He supports the scheme because he's worried about

his son being able to stay nearby. He said, My kids are now entering adulthood and the

chance for them to get on the property ladder is constrained by the quantity of housing

pushing up house prices. It's nice to see affordable housing included, especially for

kids growing up and trying to get on the housing ladder. My son is training to be a police

officer and as a key worker it would be good for him to be able to access affordable housing.

And Christopher, a local homeowner and parent, said, It's getting really difficult for young

people to get on the property ladder. I've got three children and I know their friends

are also struggling. Having more affordable housing is absolutely a good thing for the

younger ones because unless they've got really good jobs it's very hard and they end up borrowing

a lot. I also think the proposed landscaping is a good idea. Jo is a local homeowner who

supports the plans to help more local people have an opportunity for home ownership. She

said they need to do more for young families and first -time buyers so they can get their

first step on the housing ladder. It would be good for Amersham and definitely help people

in that area. These storeys remind us that behind every planning application are real people trying

to find suitable homes in the communities that they value. Today you as councillors have the

opportunity to help people like Katie, Darren, Christopher and Joe and many others who want to

live in a home they can afford in the community they call home. You can help them by approving

this application and giving people the homes and opportunities they deserve. Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 1:25:58

Thank you very much. Mila can I just confirm you're representing Darren Glasgow

is your why you're here to say thank you thanks that clarification and now for

the final speaker of this application which is Oliver Bell who is the agent

you have three minutes whenever you ready thank you good evening I'm

Speaker - 1:26:19

speaking on behalf of Horridge strategic land Horridge is part of W black group

and SME house builder that delivers projects across their own counties as

you've heard the application before you today is in outline form for up to 45

homes and we fully support your officers recommendation to grant outline planning

permission on this grey belt site. As an outline application the scheme relates to the principle

of development and access to the highway only. Detailed design in relation to matters of

appearance, landscaping, layout and scale will come back to the council and the public for

consideration at the reserve matter stage. Members will be aware that the council cannot demonstrate

a five -year housing land supply. Indeed the council assesses its supply to be materially

less than one year, which in my experience is one of the worst in England.

Our proposals respond to this demonstrable unmet need for housing.

Members may be aware that the site was previously proposed to be allocated for 50 dwellings

in the now withdrawn Chiltern and South Bucks local plan.

That draught allocation set out a number of specific requirements which had been met by

this application, such as ensuring no net loss of on -street parking spaces on Wealden

Street, a sensitive landscape approach and enhancing active travel connectivity to and

from the site.

The officer's report rightly identifies that the site is grey belt.

It is enclosed on all sides by existing development and or infrastructure and it does not perform

strongly against the relevant purposes of the green belt.

This is also confirmed by the council's own green belt assessment.

The site is sustainably located, having good access to local services, facilities and public

transport.

The officer's report identifies that the application meets the government's golden

rules through the provision of 50 % affordable housing, improvements to local infrastructure

and the provision of new green spaces which are accessible to the public.

National policy is clear.

This should carry significant weight in favour of granting permission.

As set out in the officer's report, the application will result in significant benefits

such as delivery of much needed market housing, including up to 45 homes for families, providing

Around 50 % of those homes is affordable housing, a framework for high quality accessible open

space including a play area and economic benefits through construction activity, job creation

and local expenditure.

Contributions towards local services and infrastructure will also be secured via a section 106 agreement.

We appreciate there is opposition to the proposals before you, however this country is facing

a housing crisis which Buckinghamshire is not immune from.

Unfortunately, affordability is materially worse here than the national average and the

future housing supply is a fraction of what national policy expects.

The purpose of the government's new Greybelt policy is, in part, to support short -term

delivery of suitable sites like this as one of the many measures to help address the housing

crisis this country faces.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that you follow your office's recommendation and

approve the proposals before you.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 1:29:15

Thank you very much.

Now there's a lot of speakers for questions, so let's get going, Councillor Tett.

Thank you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:29:23

Yes, thank you.

Can I just put on the record before we start for this whole item, any questions or observations

I make are not meant to be disrespectful to our officers for whom I have an immensely

high regard.

I do have a number of comments that I will make subsequently on this report.

Can I just ask the two speakers on behalf of the development?

The lady said that she felt the objectors were a minority and that the

majority of local people supported the development. However, the only evidence I

could find for that were four testimonials. How do you know that the

majority of people in Old Amersham support this development? I also have a

Speaker - 1:30:04

question for the developer. So what I reference was the national polling shows

that majority of people in every area support new development. My role

specifically is that the majority of people that do get involved in planning

are people who have anxieties and concerns, who have every right to have

their voices heard. But my role is to make sure that people in need of new

housing that don't usually have the time or confidence to engage are involved and

have their voices heard. So I wasn't insinuating that the objectors were the

minority, I was just stating that national polling shows that the majority

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:30:37

of people in every area do actually support new housing. So just to be

absolutely clear them from the answer there is no evidence that the majority

Speaker - 1:30:44

of people in old Amersham support this development correct I didn't

specifically so I'm speaking on behalf of the 30 supporters that we engaged

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:30:50

that's very helpful thank you very much and to the developer the the council you

refer to you still got the council's Greenbelt assessment would you just

qualify which council you're referring to because we are currently Buckingham

Speaker - 1:31:11

Council whose Greenbelt assessment are you referring to those two there's two

green belt assessments which are referred to within the but which one did

you refer to so specific so really slow and plural there's both both green belt

assessments both green belts both sorry let me just ask the question in which

council so were you referring to it would have been the form say that the

latter one is for Buckinghamshire Council the earlier one would have been

prior to the formation of Buckinghamshire Council.

So the one that specifically at that time

recommended the release of this land

was not Buckinghamshire Council?

Yes, correct, that was obviously referenced

in the context of the former Children and South Bucks

local plan.

In a very different context.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:31:51

And your assertion is that the current Graybell assessment

that's just been carried out

specifically releases this land, is that correct?

Speaker - 1:31:58

No, I didn't say that it releases this land.

It's not, I mean, the purpose of that report

is not to release any land.

Obviously that's the local plan process

which is still to take place.

What that assessment does is it identifies

the contributions that parcels of varying scales

make to the purposes of including land

within the greenbelt.

And that assessment concludes that the parcel

within which the site falls does not strongly contribute

to those relevant purposes that the case officer mentioned.

I'm sorry, I just want to be really clear

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:32:29

because it is fundamental here.

I thought you stated that the council's assessment was that this was grey belt

My understanding is that was not the case

Speaker - 1:32:44

I just want to be really precise so the members are not misled on this the in terms of the green belt purposes

The green belt assessment concludes it doesn't perform strongly against any of those relevant purposes as set out within the offices report

The committee sorry the green belt assessment does discount it in relation to footnote 7

considerations because of a blanket approach to national landscape. So it

does not declare it's great the new assessment does not designate it as

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:33:10

grey belt. Thank you for that reason yes. Thank you Councillor Tette and we can

Cllr David Moore - 1:33:13

obviously return some of your points at the officer stage. Councillor Roberts.

Yeah I've got a few points first of all if I can go back to the gentleman from

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:33:22

Horage again. On the grey belt assessment are you relying on the classification of

this site as grey belt for your, for this permission,

rather than very special circumstances in the green belt?

That is the, yes, that's the primary route

Speaker - 1:33:43

in which we've advanced the application.

Obviously that's the route which the officer has accepted.

In our submission, we put as a fallback,

if it were the council's position,

that it was inappropriate development

and very special circumstances were required

that we could outline a case in that respect.

But obviously, with the discussions that have happened

to this point, that wasn't necessary.

You haven't done that at this stage?

We've outlined a summary of the benefits

and we've identified the contribution it makes

to Greenbelt purposes and a conclusion

in terms of that it would be favourable overall.

But we did reserve a position to say

that we would expand that position

if that was necessary for discussions with officers

during the application process.

I'm picking up Councillor Tett's comment

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:34:26

about the the Buckinghamshire Greenbelt assessment that's done for the local plan evidence

do you accept that in that site am 0 2 0 which is this site was assessed as not grey belt

on grounds of footnote 7 yes on grounds of footnote 7 i accept that it obviously as i said

Speaker - 1:34:46

not in relation to greenbelt purposes it was specifically in respect of the approach to

footnote 7 which of course the officer has addressed and within her report okay

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:34:55

Two other points, the lady who represented the people speaking in favour, if I recall,

if I've got this correct, you speak on behalf of Shared Voices?

Yep, that's correct.

And Shared Voices are employed by Horwich?

Speaker - 1:35:12

So we would work on behalf of developers, local authorities, we're essentially a communications

consultant.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:35:19

Okay, and the comments from the people that you've put forward

Speaker - 1:35:27

Comments from people that you've solicited to comment on planning absolutely not solicited so they're not incentivized in any way

it's reaching out to people that aren't don't usually participate in the planning process and

Giving them the opportunity to submit a letter of support

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:35:39

But if I may you've you've highlighted this planning application to them and ask them to comment on it or invited them to comment on it

Speaker - 1:35:46

We exist essentially to make sure that people are aware of planning applications in their local area.

There's no incentive for these people to participate.

They are sharing their views because they believe that this development will solve some of the problems that

they're experiencing in their local area and they want to ensure that their voices heard at the point of decision.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:36:05

I came across your organisation in another circumstance and I looked it up.

My understanding is that you invite people

to pay attention to a planning application,

invite them to make comments,

and those are the comments that you've put forward.

Is that correct?

Speaker - 1:36:19

I mean, it would be the same as someone posting

on a Facebook page to let local people know

about a planning application in their local area.

It's just making sure that the avenues for people

to be aware of new development in their area

is kind of further from just a leaflet through the door.

It's making sure that people that are in genuine

housing need, who don't have the time and confidence

to engage in the normal forms are aware of the opportunities for new housing in

their local area that could significantly benefit them.

And these people are not in this local area, they're from quite a distance away, are they not up to 30, 40, 50 miles away?

I wouldn't say that they were 30, 40, 50 miles away. Everyone is within the local planning authority

because that's who has the right to have a say during a planning application and

I referenced a supporter that was a 10 minute drive away from the site, there

plenty within that proximity. Thank you. Thank you Councillor. I think the

Cllr David Moore - 1:37:09

footnotes have been important we can take up with the officers.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:37:16

The lady has spoken against Bethany. There was a discussion point about the views I

think I know some of the views myself and as many of us address the sites

visited the site the other day and could see the views.

I just wonder if you could give some clarity

around the setting of the old town

and the visibility of this site from its elevated position

public speaker - 1:37:49

from the other sites around the other side of the valley,

in particular, for instance.

So these are just some images that we have got,

which I think when you Google Amherst

Cllr David Moore - 1:38:05

when it comes up on one of the nicest places to live, that this is the vista that people

will see.

So sorry, speeches only, I do apologise. Can't show graphics. It's just a general rule. Thank

you.

Apologies.

public speaker - 1:38:11

So, could you just ask me then what the question is directly?

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:38:18

It was really around the extent to which this site would be visible from other sites around

the other side of the valley, for instance, and the visibility of this elevated position.

and if you could just give a flavour of how visible you think it would be.

public speaker - 1:38:35

I'll nominate my other registered speaker.

Yeah, so just to highlight also with absolute respect obviously to the case officer,

this field that she was pointing out earlier were completely the incorrect fields.

So if you take that view, which I'm slightly surprised we spent the last 20 minutes with

a few numbers, what we should be looking at is that iconic view that you can see as you

walk down from Old Amersham. That is a very dull, you know, grey day. If you see that

on a beautiful day, it is literally incredible. The site that is proposed is bang in the centre

of that picture. That field, that path, sorry, coming down, walks directly into it where

that cursor was just pointing. This site is hugely above the entire town. Any building

in there will be visible for miles. Every single person that comes to Old Amersham at

the weekends during the week, we see people there from many countries who come and take

that vista. So without taking overdue time, it is an iconic view. We already mentioned

in our perspective that this is used on numerous sites. We know it is a particular site for

British film and yeah it would just be destroyed by this development I mean

it's as simple as that okay thank you thank you thank you

Cllr David Moore - 1:40:06

Councillor Roberts counts the Townsend then Councillor waters thank you I had a

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:40:12

question for the gentleman from porridge I attended the site visit yesterday and

I'm interested to know why you chose that specific location for the access

point. To me it was in the middle of traffic chicanes, it appeared very crowded, a huge

amount of parking on the road. I understand it's also a double -decker bus route. I believe

a bit of mature vegetation has already been cleared from that area with this access point

in mind. But perhaps, I mean it seemed like, oh and opposite a busy hospital, it seemed

like a not the most obvious place to put an access point.

I wonder if you could just talk us through

the logic on that one.

Speaker - 1:41:00

Well obviously, Wilden Street's the boundary to the site

that provides the access to the public highway.

And then there's sort of a range of factors

that you'd consider in terms of where you site that.

And obviously there will be highway related considerations

in terms of kind of proximity to other junctions,

visibility, displays, et cetera.

You've also then got, with this site,

you've got sort of topographical considerations,

you've got existing vegetation to consider

and impacts upon those as well.

So sort of when you've sort of taken

all those sort of considerations in the round,

that's where we came to in relation

to the choice of the access.

And of course, that position has been agreed

with the highway authority as being acceptable

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:41:50

from a safety and capacity perspective. Could I just ask a question of

Miss Dodds as well. You mentioned I think you said you surveyed 30 residents in

the local planning authority so presumably living in Buckinghamshire. Are

Speaker - 1:42:07

you able to share specifically how many of those live within Old Amersham or

Amersham in general? Not off the top of my head. Essentially our methodology means that anyone that

lives within the local planning authority deserves to have a sale and application. I think when people

object it's usually because it materially impacts them with the development going on.

People that support new housing they're less likely to want to move into a development that's

right next door to them so that could mean that they're a 10 -minute drive away it could mean that

they're a 15 minute drive away but they all live within the local planning

authority because that's where they want to stay and that's where they're

interested in having a home.

If I may just jump in there did you say that this application materially impacts

Cllr David Moore - 1:42:51

old Amersham because you said it people reject things because it materially

Speaker - 1:42:56

impacts them? That's just what the objectives have said themselves from

Cllr David Moore - 1:43:00

what I'm saying I'm quoting them. Okay thank you.

Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:43:04

Thank you.

I think it's always very difficult when you get an out -client application and there's

lots of things we need to talk about.

And obviously we, the concerns in terms of what might even be the height of what you

might put on the site would be significant.

But one of the things we are looking at is the access point and also as part of that

there would be the removal of the parking spaces which are there.

But I'm still unclear where they go because when we went on the site visit, if you tried

to put them on the other side of the road, the bus would not be able to pull in into

the chicane system.

And it is a bus route, so you would have to be able to pull in and pull out and you'd

have to do some sweat path analysis to make sure that could happen.

So I'm not quite sure where these parking spaces are going to go.

As you can see from the photographs we did have, which was spot on, almost every single

parking space all the way along that street is almost always used, and particularly when

the hospital is in operation.

So it is key because the hospital does not have enough parking on its own site, so that's

why it's paid parking on the roads there.

And it's that area that's going to get impacted where people do have to drive to that for

appointments there.

so it will have an impact on moving those.

Yes, thank you, Councillor.

Speaker - 1:44:27

We had put forward in our submission,

in terms of following up on comments raised

by the highways officer,

we had provided some additional information

in terms of the suggested location

for some of the replacement parking spaces,

some to the south side of Wealden Street

and some onto the northern side.

But you'll probably be aware of seeing the update,

the supplementary note that has come through from the highways officer and

within there they've they said that they would still like some adjustments made

in terms of exactly where those parking spaces will go and they've said that

given the amount of publicly maintained highway in this location they propose

that this is secured by way of condition in terms of a scheme to be submitted for

the private the precise location of those parking spaces so at the moment

There's still a discussion with the highways officer in terms of exactly where they go

But the highways officer is very clear that there is more than sufficient land available within the publicly maintained highway to safely deliver those

Parking bays such that there would be no net loss as a result of the development and there is a condition proposed to secure that

Cllr David Moore - 1:45:40

thank you and coming back on the

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:45:42

Green belt and national landscapes and

One of the things which was very clear

from the analysis we've seen as councillors,

there are huge areas across the whole of Buckinghamshire

which are designated as grey belt under the recent analysis.

This site was not one of those.

So in terms of yes, there is a shortage of housing,

but there is not a shortage of sites

that would come under provisional grey belt.

This is not one of them.

So I'm not quite sure on the argument.

you're making in terms of I know we have the shortfall but the grey belt element

has been and there's analysis there and this site didn't didn't meet

Speaker - 1:46:30

yes obviously aware that the council's evidence base they've identified what

they consider to be a range of grey belt sites across the county as a whole but

the reality is is that that's that's information which is obviously looking

to inform a local plan process, which is still very much needs to run its course.

Obviously, it needs to be a published strategy of that.

And then that still needs to go through an examination process with an independent inspector,

which we understand that will take place at best next year.

The reality is that there's no applications or at least there's not sufficient applications

on those sorts of sites available to you now.

This is a planning application, which is before the committee now, which is seeking to address

the severe housing land supply shortfall that exists now.

All those sites which have potentially been identified,

they've obviously got to go through a rigorous process

of further assessment.

Greybelts only one part of, you know,

that isn't the silver bullet that means that

planning permission is granted immediately.

It's an important factor for sites like this,

but there are a range of other factors

that need to be considered.

That applies to this site,

that applies to other sites as well.

Thank you.

It's sort of what makes this particularly a speculative site before we have a local plan

It is it is a speculative site because it's not allocated but obviously

National policy

effectively with the changes to national policy that was that the government accepted that that was going to be a consequence of the introduction of

1 .5 5 of the MPPF and that that was an accepted consequence and that was deliberate as a way to help to boost

for supply of homes in the short term,

which is exactly what this application's seeking to do.

Thank you, Councillor Waters.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:48:15

Councillor Harris, then Councillor Hynde.

Thank you, Chairman.

Another question for yourself, I'm afraid.

Great deal of sympathy with the idea of affordable housing.

But many of us have sat on this committee

for many, many years.

And when you have an outline planning application like this,

how can you be sure that what you're going to provide is affordable?

Because Buckinghamshire is hugely expensive

and what's affordable in Beckonsfield, what's affordable in Amherst,

what's affordable in Marlowe is quite different.

And I don't think it would cut the masters if we end up with studio flats

just in order to provide something that's affordable.

So in your mind, I know we're not talking about the design,

but what do you think is minimum size property you'd have to provide

to ensure it's affordable to people on an income of 80 ,000?

Well, the premise is that provision of affordable housing

is tenure blind, so there isn't a case of it would be

Speaker - 1:49:15

some form of inferior to the smaller accommodation

or something just because it is affordable.

In the officer's presentation, she identified there would

obviously be a split in terms of shared ownership

and affordable rent properties and figures to be provided

with that, and we'd obviously expect that the mix of units

to be provided and would be reflective of the latest needs position so it would

be a range of a range of sizes of property property types and sizes to

meet a variant array of needs exist and in terms of sort of meeting how do they

meet the definition of how to have a genuinely affordable I mean they are

they meet the definition of affordable within national policy and within local

policy and that would be secured within a section 106 agreement to ensure that

they remain as such. Thank You councillor.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:50:01

Again access particularly on the in the building phase of the of the project the

place you chosen seems to be from your perspective the most cost -effective and

not necessarily the least impact on the people,

either those working at the hospital

or people living on Wealden Street.

You know, during the site visit yesterday,

we identified at least two other areas

which would have seemed a much better place to put it,

but would have probably cost the developers

a little bit more.

Can you say that cost was not part of the argument

for the selection of the place you did?

Speaker - 1:50:51

I mean, I've obviously already gone through the sort of the range of sort of considerations

that have been undertaken in terms of determining the location of this access.

I should add as well that there were pre -application discussions that took place with the Highway

Authority.

And so, you know, I'm repeating myself, but obviously they have assessed it and they've

concluded that it is an acceptable location to cite the access in respect of highway capacity

and safety considerations.

Thank you very much.

Any more questions to any of the speakers?

Cllr David Moore - 1:51:30

Thank you, speakers.

Thank you, members.

Thank you, officers.

We now move to questions to the officers, starting with Councillor Townsend.

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:51:39

Thank you.

I'd like to start by asking the officer a question about the weighing and balancing

section of her report.

A few points I'd like to dig into.

First of all, paragraph 7 .12.

This is in relation to the MPPF golden rules, relating to affordable housing, infrastructure

provision and green space.

compliance with these rules should attract significant weight in favour of

granting permission. Now I note above that we already have affordable housing

affording substantial positive weight. Below that we have open space provision

affording moderate positive weight. What additional

benefit is being counted in paragraph 712 that isn't counted elsewhere? It

seems an element of double counting on that point.

And then I note from the update

that we received yesterday, or today,

that you have amended paragraph 719 and 722

to upgrade significant weight to great weight

given to the national landscape harm identified.

Looking at those on balance, we've got the benefits of the proposal, we've got a very

substantial, a substantial couple of significance and a few moderates.

But then on the assessment of harm, we've now got two great weights versus – sorry,

two great weights and substantial moderate.

I wonder how it is your overall conclusion remains the same given the

update or the upgrading of significant to great. I'd like to just hear your

thoughts on that. I understand it's subjective and again I echo my

colleagues comments about these comments being brought with the greatest respect

but I think it's an important issue to unpick. Thank you. Thank you. So in

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:53:48

In relation to those weightings specifically,

I'm guided by the national planning policy framework

on those.

So in relation to the golden rules,

paragraph 158 of the national planning policy framework

says I have to assign significant weight

if a development adheres to the golden rules.

So there may be an element of double counting

in terms of the infrastructure provisions,

but I'm just guided by the MPPF to give that.

Sorry, so does that mean you then have to address

affordable housing and open space provisions

Separately in your report and reallocate weight to them. Yeah, that's correct

The golden rules encompasses all of them

It's part of the way the policy frameworks being set up in terms of great about vision and the rest of individual elements on

Alone and they relate directly to the heart of the housing land supply and so on. So yes, they are signed different weightings

and then again in terms of

great weight for national landscape

That is the waiting assigned in the national planning policy framework for national landscape harm

Which is why I've just aligned my report to alignment the MPPF. I wouldn't necessarily say that I consider

Great weight to be more than significant or substantial

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:55:04

It's great weight not the highest you would

attribute I

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:55:09

Think again, it's subjective. I'm I would say that

substantial is the highest weighting and then below that significant and then

great what about very substantial that'd be high that would be higher as well yes

with just a touch on following on council towns ends points and really

Cllr David Moore - 1:55:30

good questions there and also cancer obviously mentioned footnote 7 the

heritage harm how how come that doesn't in you in the officers view amount to a

refusal under footnote 7 and which harms within the heritage in the old town is

affected the most which you consider isn't so much which assets specifically

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:55:55

are impacted here considering it's in the next adjacent to the old town. Thank you.

So I do acknowledge the heritage harm and I assign the heritage harm great way

which again is instructed by the National Planning Policy Framework. I

of heritage harm that's been pointed out by the Heritage Officer and I'll say it's the list of building number 52

I think on Wilden Street

And also to the conservation area itself

But I considered the harms in the round, you know all the individual harms

and then in terms of I mean, it's my

Professional opinion that the benefits associated the scheme outweigh that heritage harm and what the MPPF directs you to do is

undertake that

Public benefits versus harm planning balance at that stage once you've identified the heritage harm

Council offers you want to come in there

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:56:49

Yes, if I may. Yeah

so a lot of the discussion that just gone through is

follows on from an assessment that the site is grey belt the waiting of the

tilted balance and the golden rules, etc

The starting point for that is that the site

is assessed as grey belt.

But this site has been assessed as not grey belt

because of footnote seven national landscape reasons.

So the rest of that discussion doesn't come into play

because it's ruled out by national landscape designation.

That's my understanding.

So can you reconcile that for us please

and tell me where that is in the national planning framework

where it's got that wording that allows it to be weighed up rather than ruled out?

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:57:43

So you can rule a site out of being defined as grey belt if you consider there to be a strong

reason for refusal under footnote 7. So national landscape could form that strong reason for

refusal but first you have to get there in terms of demonstrating there is significant

Harm to the children's national landscape to form a reason for refusal

Whereas I understand that the Buckinghamshire Council green about assessment has done a high level starting point and said because it's national landscape

It's not grey about but what you need to do is go beyond that and assess the application site as a whole and how

It contributes to national landscape and what the overall harm is

Well, where is that in the MPPF which paragraph because I?

Can't I don't see that

that could test being available in the NPPF.

It's just,

it's just, it's not, so I've got paragraph 155 here

which says that the development must utilise grey belt land

but it's actually within the definition

of grey belt land itself which I've put here

and it's the very last paragraph which says

Policy is relating to areas or assets in footnote 7 other than Greenbelt because we're assessing whether it's Greenbelt

Great belt would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development

But what's been established by case law is that it's refusing development that we need to be looking towards

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:59:17

If I if I may to test this point because it is a critical point in this

this case

the PPG outlines the methodology for assessing the

grain belt assessed under and assessing it against grey belt that's been done by

the council's grey belt green belt assessment process and that found it

this site to be not grey belt are you saying that you're applying the same

methodology and coming up with a different answer that's what I don't

Ms. Rachel Marber - 1:59:51

understand so in terms of the green belt assessment for the Buckinghamshire

Council that comprised a larger site area, so I think I've got it on the slides

I'm sorry

Yeah

No, here is um, so it formed that red outline which says a .m.

020 so you can see it comprises the field on the other side the road as well

So it's a larger land parcel, but it's the starting point and then you need to go and assess it

It's site by site. It's the same methodology

So I also understand just very quickly just from the legal officer

Ms. Teresa Coppock - 2:00:37

Thank you, Jim. I just wanted to follow on from what Rachel said and just add that there has been a high court case

That asked this question and the court held that it is correct when you've got a planning application before you

In the development management process it is correct to apply the footnote 7

to the actual development that's being proposed.

So that means the actual site,

whereas the local plan draught Greenbelt assessment,

that's assessing the whole parcel

within which the site sits.

So it is looking, as Rachel says, at a higher level.

It's not site specific.

No, I understand that.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:01:12

And I'm not aware, though,

that there's an allowance that is smaller,

that it can be unpacked.

In the Greenbelt assessment under the PPG,

the assessment areas have to be appropriate size

and assessed at the appropriate size for assessment.

And that having been done, I'm not aware

that they can be then unpacked and parts of a site

be then assessed as grey belt and released.

That's my understanding.

Thank you Councillor. I understand what you're saying but what we're talking

about is work that's been done for the local plan on Greenbelt sites as in this

red edge site here as opposed to what we're doing in a development management

Mr Charles Power - 2:02:09

application which is a start point is the fact that looking at the wider

parcel we've come to a conclusion for taking it forward for the local plan

whereas looking at the DM situation we are only looking at the application site

in front of us so the fact that the parcel as a whole might not be considered

to be grey belt because the whole of the parcel is within the Chilterns national

landscape we then have to go on and consider the application and the impact

that the application has on the Chilterns National Landscape.

And if it doesn't meet the criteria set out in 155, then it doesn't engage footnote 7.

And the application itself can be grey belt.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:03:04

OK, so if I could just do one more test on this one.

Are you saying therefore that the Green Belt assessment

that was done that has assessed areas as not grey belt,

that for planning development management purposes,

you can unpack that and treat parts of it as grey belt

within a package, a piece of land that has been designated

as not grey belt?

Mr Charles Power - 2:03:34

A wider area has been assessed against the criteria for Greybelt and we've come

to a conclusion. Then we have to, as you say, unpack it in terms of the of this

application site and consider this site specifically against those criteria and

you can come to a different conclusion as our legal officer has said.

Okay, I think I'll hang fire there,

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:04:00

but this raises a lot of implications

for our greenbelt assessment work that's been done

and the designations elsewhere.

So I think it's important that we get this decision correct.

Mr Charles Power - 2:04:12

What we're considering here is the planning application,

not the greenbelt assessment.

I understand.

Thank you, Councillor Roberts.

Councillor Tett and Councillor Waters,

then Councillor Harris.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:04:20

Yes, thank you.

I think, just echoing Councillor Roberts' comments,

You know, there's some really really important principles that are being you know, potentially laid out by our officers here

And I think it's very important as members that we really get our heads around these and get into them, you know

So I apologise if this item takes a bit of time

But this is very very fundamental to the whole way in which the new local plan is being put together

You know and it does raise the spectre of develop speculative developers coming along and I'm picking the whole grey belt assessment

that's just been carried out by simply picking up parcels here there and

everywhere and saying well you know it's not the whole parcel you know so hey

just look at this bit in isolation and I think that's massive issue if if that is

the case and I'm not sure I accept that just again so I'm sorry to be pedantic

but in 660 the council's Greenbelt exceptional report in 2019 this council

did not exist in 2019 so I'm assuming that actually should be referring to the

historic district council, not this council.

I just want to put that there,

because it is misleading to the public

the way this is written.

I am very confused, because I had a meeting

with very senior officials in the Ministry

for Housing and Local Government, MHCLG,

just over a year ago, looking at the whole issue

of Greybelt, and it was very specifically said to me

by those very senior officials in MHCLG

that the areas of outstanding natural beauty

as they were then designated, now national landscapes,

were excluded from Greybelt, yep,

were excluded from Greybelt.

No caveats, no break them up into little bits,

they were excluded.

And that seems to be the reading of footnote seven as well.

So it is very strange the way

the officers' interpretation of this,

and obviously we don't know the specifics

of the case study that, as Kopok has mentioned,

It's not in this report, so it's very hard to refer to it.

I am very concerned about this.

In fairness, Ms Marbell has actually said it is subjective, some of these judgements.

They are her professional opinion.

I've had experience of planning for over 40 years.

Planning, although there are rules, is still an art, not a science.

it comes down at the end of the day to judgments

of what is substantial harm, great harm and so on

and the various weightings that you attach to them.

So I am concerned that the judgement in this case,

which I think is and it's been admitted to be subjective,

is that this is grey belt

and actually there's very little harm.

When you have the evidence, the CCB,

the Children's Conservation Board,

has actually written a quite extensive

What's your question, Councillor Tefft?

We just keep to the point.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I wanted to just lay it out.

So to the officer, where is the subjective judgement

that actually leads you to the grey belt assessment?

And thank you for picking me up on this.

I feel very strongly about this item,

as you can probably tell.

Why is it, given the guidance in the MPPF,

that your subjective judgement and professional opinion

takes you to this conclusion rather than the one that's contained in the NPPF in

its current form.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:07:52

So I suppose my starting point on the Greybark land is looking at the

Greenbark purposes but setting that aside and just addressing the footnote

seven matters. I've set them out within the relevant sections of the report so

the footnote 7 matter in terms of national landscape I've set out my

judgement on harm to the national landscape which I consider overall to

be harmful but moderately harmful just because of the local extent that the

application site is visible within the children's national landscape and from

that I have then derived that it's not a strong reason for refusal

Thank you, Councillor Sepp. Councillor Waters, then Councillor Harris.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:08:44

I'm going to come back on exactly the same point, actually. Knowing the area very well

and knowing the views that people have been talking about, actually where this piece of

land comes into play, if you look at the road that does look like it's a boundary road,

it's cut down below the actual hillside

to make sure it is not visible,

it is not impacting the natural landscape.

And this is actually the beginning

as you come out on the backdrop

that you get from old Amersham.

So the significance,

and that's why I'm concerned about your evaluation,

is that this piece,

yeah, if you're looking at a flat map,

tells you very little.

when you actually look at it in terms of how it sits, how it impacts the landscape,

how it's seen as you're walking into or out of,

actually is the beginning of the sweep that goes up to the Chiltern Hills,

which Amersham Nestle's in the middle of.

And so actually I see that it isn't a segment that actually is removed,

and I can see the logic of why it's still part of the national landscapes,

because the whole point of when that road was designed

is it should not breach the look of the national landscape area or area of outstanding natural beauty, which is what basically it is.

And so it was done very carefully by planners a long time before us to make sure it's like that.

So actually what you've overridden now, there's a frowning going on there, but actually I wouldn't frown because this is actually what it looks like at the moment.

And so if you're there, this is actually a continuation.

The road is there, but it's there and it's hidden.

It's the same way as you have with HS2.

They put it into cuttings.

They put it into tunnels.

They do various things.

It's still there.

It goes through something, but it doesn't actually

change something.

So this is by removing it.

And then all the other discussions

we've had about the analysis that's gone on on this site,

taking it off and creating a segment from it

concerns me because it still really operates as a clear element of that hillside.

And I think that's concerning me that that's the decision.

Obviously, it's going to be your decision.

We're going to have to come to a different one maybe, but that's what's concerned me.

Cllr David Moore - 2:11:07

Did you want to summarise the question to the officer?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:11:10

Yeah, I really want to go through exactly, you know,

why you think it cannot be part still of the wider area,

why is your creating a segment there

that is totally separate?

Is it just the road is really the decision you've made?

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:11:29

Yeah, it's really to do with the extent

of the visual envelope as well.

So I'm not denying that the site is visible,

it is visible, but it's visible kind of

from the opposing valley hills of Old Amersham.

And so I've kind of curtailed the harm to some extent

because I don't think, you know,

it could be more visible, really.

And it is also to do with the contained nature of the site.

So it's contained by the A413 on one side,

then the built development of Amersham on the other side.

And I do think that it'd be read within that backdrop

of the built development of old Amersham as well,

which has led me to kind of maybe come up

with a lower level of harm

in terms of national landscape harm.

Thank you Councillor Waters. Councillor Harris and then Councillor Mathews.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:12:20

I think I'll save mine for debate I don't want to be accused of not having a question.

Councillor Mathews.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 2:12:27

Yes, talking about the visual harm, this site's obviously on a very steep slope and it's an outline application

so we have absolutely no idea what the development is actually going to look like

and how it's going to sit on that site.

So how have you managed to make an assessment

of the visual impacts when you don't have that information?

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:12:56

Well, as part of the application,

they submitted a landscape visual impact assessment,

which provided some photo montages

of what the development will look like within views

and with with outline applications you assess worst case scenario so what you

assess that is the maximum height and also the maximum amount of development

site because the 45 dwellings is the upper number in this instance

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:13:28

Councillor Townsend thank you I had a question in relation to paragraph 6 .35

of your report which relates to paragraph 190 of the MPPF. You have

determined that this development wouldn't constitute a major development

in the national landscape. Footnote 67 obviously gives you the, as a

decision -maker, the ability to decide upon that, taking into account nature,

a scale setting, whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the

purposes for which the area has been designated or defined. Could you explain

your rationale behind the decision -making on it not being a major

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:14:15

development? Yes, so I've based that on the harm that I've come up with in terms

of landscape and national landscape harm but also the size of the site in

relation to the settlements. That's what we're guided to do by other appeal

decisions when they come to assessing major developments.

So it is in relation to the planning assessment

in terms of harm, but also just the scale of development

in relation to the surrounding adjacent settlement as well.

Is there any specific precedent or case law

that you're relying on in making that decision?

Because I understand there have been,

if we're talking about numbers of sites,

I understand that there are smaller sites

that are designated or deemed to be a major development.

It's subjective and it's really just being guided by other pill decisions

See if we've got a site of a similar quantum in relation to a similar size settlement, but it is really a subjective

decision

Council Ashman

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 2:15:20

Thank you, I appreciate we've been around the grey belt leap a few times

But if we step back to before the NPPF was developed

I think the principles -based approach that the government was taking was this was supposed to be poor quality scrub land

so on the outskirts of town, not areas of natural beauty, etc.

Getting into the detail, however, the bit I can't reconcile is if we talk about a strong contribution to, for instance, Purpose D

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and then we have the Heritage Officer saying

that

the open land plays a crucial role

in preserving the historic character of the town.

I appreciate we get into nuances further on,

but nothing overrides that statement that I can see.

So how are we reconciling those two elements?

Thank you.

So as a starting point,

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:16:13

I used the previous Greenbelt assessment.

So that's the Chiltern South Park

so -called plan group evidence -based

where they assess this land parcel in its entirety

and said it was moderately performing its purpose day and also the green

about assessment for the new Buckinghamshire local plan I'll be it's a

larger redline area but it has a similar relationship to that historic town

centre and again it was considered as moderately performing in terms of

purpose D and then when you look beyond that we've got the national planning

policy guidance which guide us in terms of what strength we should give that

purpose and I think the moderate criteria fits this site better just in

terms of it says it's separated to some extent from the historical aspects of

the town by existing development or topography which I think in this case it

does see it and that's why I think moderate I'd say three more questions

Councillor Roberts, Councillor Tannen, Councillor Harris.

I'm actually gonna steal two questions.

That's fine.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:17:19

First one, they might be quite quick.

First one is on the heritage assets.

There's an assessment quite detailed

about lots of properties.

This must be one of the most,

one of the densest heritage areas in Buckinghamshire,

I would suggest, in the conservation area.

And a lot of the properties are marked

with the level of harm against each individual asset.

So what weight have you given to the cumulative impact

of all of those individual harms in your assessment?

So we're guided by the MPPF here to give great weight.

How does that relate?

The number of those are moderate, are they individually?

The assets.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:18:18

So individually the heritage assets have been assessed by the conservation area conservation

officer and the conservation officer is assigned less than a potential harm within a scale

and that's been set out within the report and then what the MPPF assigns you to do is

give great weight to any heritage harm found overall.

Okay.

Councillor Turner.

Sorry, I did have a second one.

Oh, so you had one report.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:18:49

Yeah, the second one was on a different topic again,

which was about the ecology report.

Because the ecology officer,

I believe they objected to the baseline assessment

for the BNG metric.

Can you update us on what the position is on that?

the BNG.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:19:10

Yes, they have. I think with

the BNG it has the information

we have established that the

site will deliver a net loss in

BNG so it needs to be offset

through the provisional credits.

What happens at the point of

application is there's a

standard condition which is

nationally applied which

requires updated BNG metric and

information to be submitted at

the relevant time so all of that

information will come forward at

time and we have become the baseline information available to make our

assessment in that there will be a net loss. Thank you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:19:49

Councillor Tett? Yes I just wanted to come back to the heritage aspect as well

because I'm just reading paragraph 616. The council's heritage officer was

consulted on the heritage assessment and considers that the application site does

play a crucial role, crucial role, in preserving the historic character of the

of the town, acting as a buffer between the built environment

and the countryside.

The site reinforces, et cetera.

Then in 617, council officers therefore consider

that the proposed development would result in less

than substantial harm to a number of heritage assets.

So we have the heritage officer's professional opinion,

we have the assessment on a number of properties,

and yet the overall balance is that it's less

than substantial harm.

And again, I'd just like to understand how that process,

albeit subjective, as we heard earlier,

resulted in that conclusion.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:20:47

So it was the Heritage Officer

that assigned the less than substantial harm.

So the way the MPPF instructs you to assign heritage harm

is that you have less than substantial

and then you have substantial harm.

And substantial harm is a very high bar

to really get substantial harm

to a designated heritage asset.

it has to result in the total loss of that asset or the kind of significant portion of removal of that asset

So I know it sounds like she's saying that it's not harm or something. I'm saying there's not harm when I say less substantial

That's not I'm saying I'm just repeating terminology in the MPP. Yeah

But again just for the sake of clarity and I won't labour the point too far

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:21:25

the council's Heritage Officer was consulted on the Heritage assessment and

considers that the application site does play quote a crucial role in preserving

the historic character of the town but you're saying that that is completely

consistent with less than substantial harm. It is consistent so you really find

less than substantial harm as the waiting when it's harm to setting and

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:21:50

that is what we're dealing with here. Like I said, the substantial harm is when

you're kind of harming the heritage asset directly. I think it is reflected

In the heritage officers comments because she's then said that she considers it to be middle range of less than substantial harm

So she is saying there is a high level of harm than there is to other assets where she said lower and of lessons

It's not your harm. So it is a kind of sliding scale within that lesson substantial

bracket

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 2:22:17

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:22:20

Counsellor Harris you saw once asked a question. Thank you very much. We're actually going to end up end this with a proposal

Old Allamshire was as much about built environment as it is about the Greenland around it.

When you go into the old town, you see the market building there in the middle.

Great starting point.

You look to your right, you see the mature trees with the, I guess it's the Norman Church

behind.

Wonderful visual impact.

What's the visual impact going to be of this site?

We're told that in the officer's opinion,

that we're going to see a development here

that's not going to impact dramatically on those views,

and I would hope recreate those views.

But the big difficulty we've got

is that's entirely subjective,

and we don't have enough information

in a outline application to see what's proposed,

as was rightly pointed out by Councillor Matthews.

To my mind, I would hate to see something

which ultimately this site will be developed in time.

It has natural boundaries of the A413 behind it,

but it's also in a very sensitive area.

So I'd hate to see a development go through

that for the sake of viability,

we end up with a pig's ear,

as opposed to something that we can show off

to the rest of the world and say,

What's the question?

Well, that's what I'm saying.

It's my proposal is, well, the question could be,

how can you guarantee that in your opinion,

and with all the hard work the office is gonna have to put

into the detailed aspect of this application,

that you can guarantee to me that the 50 % social housing,

which affords us the golden rules, can be complied with?

Because my huge concern is that over every development

we go to the viability argument is put forward,

the social and affordable housing ends up out of the window

and we end up with something

which is not what we were proposed.

So I would actually like to propose refusal on the basis

that we cannot guarantee.

We're not at the debate stage yet.

But if we are minded to,

did you wanna answer that question?

Then we'll move to the debate.

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:24:41

So just to reassure you on that,

that this outline stage would be when you would do that viability assessment.

So what would happen if there was a recommend for approval?

You would secure the affordable housing as part of a Section 106 agreement.

And should that affordable housing

become unviable at detailed design stage, you need to go back to square one

and resubmit this outline application because it was granted

on principle of securing that affordable housing.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:25:11

The answer is that as far as this application is concerned, viability isn't an issue. If

the viability changes, we will be back here having another discussion. As far as this

application is concerned, we can give you a...

With all due respect, we're looking at this

with a viability argument because it has to satisfy

the three golden rules.

And one of those golden rules is 50 % affordable housing.

And that's what this application is doing.

We can't guarantee that.

Mr Charles Power - 2:25:50

Well, where do you draw the line, Councillor?

Because we've got an application before us

where the developer who's sitting in the room is saying,

we're going to provide you with the 50 % affordable housing

and we're prepared to enter into a legal agreement with the Council to be able to do that.

And that is the basis on which we are considering this application.

We're not considering it on any other basis.

So that's the way you have to consider the application.

You can't start asking theoretical questions about what might happen in some other situation.

The situation we have in front of us is the situation that has been presented in the officer

report.

Thank you officers.

Cllr David Moore - 2:26:31

So I think on that note, I think that's a timely transition

to the debate now, I really appreciate your report.

Who wants to start us off?

I think there is a number of policy conflicts here,

but let's now debate this and then let's propose

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:26:42

whatever decision we come to.

Councillor Tepp.

Chairman, I'd like to seek your guidance

because I think we've actually had discussion

on most of those issues whilst we've gone through

the comments to, the questions to the applicants

and indeed to the officer.

So I mean, I'd like to put a proposal on the table,

just like your guidance of whether you believe

that to be premature.

Cllr David Moore - 2:27:02

If you would like to, what would you like to propose?

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:27:05

I'd like to propose that the committee

rejects this application on three key grounds.

One is that it is Greenbelt and remains Greenbelt

in line with the NPPF and the 2025 Greenbelt assessment

carried out by Buckinghamshire Council.

Secondly, that it lies within what was the former

Chilterns AONB, now the National Landscapes,

and the substantial harm to the OMB that's contained within the comments by

the CCB and indeed that's consistent with the MPPF clause. And thirdly that's

impact on the historic setting of the old town of Amersham and that

again is consistent with the defence that's allowed within the MPPF because

of the historic setting of that town. So those to me would be the key three key

reasons that this committee should refuse this application. Thank You

Councillor Tett. I just spoke to our legal officer who who's just taking down

what you've just said. Are there any officers who want to come in on that

quickly before we move to summarise the proposal before us with those reasons.

Mr Charles Power - 2:28:17

Can you explain to me please what weight you're giving to those

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:28:20

various aspects. Yes I'm actually on heritage I am agreeing with the Heritage

officer that it does play a crucial role and therefore I believe that the

assessment should be one of a higher degree of harm. Secondly in terms of

green belt. Can I come back to you on that bit? When you say a higher degree of harm I need you to be

specific as to what harm you're talking about. Would you like to discuss with me earlier

about the graduation in terms of the different categories of harm. Are you

saying less than a high degree of less than substantial harm is that what you

proposing here I think the officers need to guide us in terms of the exact

definitions so for example we had some confusion earlier about substantial

less than substantial and so on can you just tell us what is the highest degree

of harm outside of an impact directly on a building and cancel it out are you

Cllr David Moore - 2:29:16

suggesting footnote 7 is engaged I believe footnote 7 should be engaged

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:29:20

because this is Greenbelt and falls within footnote 7 and I think also the

direct impact on the AOMB setting as outlined by my colleague to my left

Jonathan Waters it does actually form part of a larger area which will have a

it will have a detrimental effect on that wider envelope of the AOMB.

I know Councillor Roberts has been waiting patiently.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:29:42

Yes I support this entirely.

The particular point is my understanding is that footnote 7 is

engaged and is not dependent on an assessment of harm.

So it is a strong reason for refusal in its own right.

And that that's what we should be citing under footnote seven

is engaged in this site.

So it's not grey belt and therefore not applicable.

And that aligns with policy CS22 and LSQ1.

Footnote seven is engaged in what respect please?

Is it heritage?

It's national landscape.

Well, I'm asking because it's national landscape.

Mr Charles Power - 2:30:23

It's national landscape.

Is that the heritage impact in the national landscape?

No, no, no, it's national landscape under footnote seven

is excluded from grey belt.

So based on -

Just to be clear, I think we have three reasons.

One is the green belt exactly,

as my colleague has just said,

Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:30:39

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:30:41

the footnote seven is engaged.

But in addition, there is an impact on the wider AONB.

And thirdly, there is a historic setting issue

in line with the officer recommendation 616.

And that's also purpose D of the Green Bell.

Purpose D of Green Bell.

But.

Mr Charles Power - 2:31:02

So, officers have accepted that there's heritage harm

and officers have accepted that that's less than substantial

and I think we are both in agreement

that the heritage harm is less than substantial.

I haven't said that.

Well, no, you asked me,

you earlier asked for my advice on the levels of harm

and lessons of, we explained that substantial harm

in terms of heritage is basically

somebody coming along and potentially knocking down

a listed building or doing something

in that range of things,

whereas having a visual impact upon

any sort of listed building or conservation area

is a less than substantial harm.

Now the officer explained that there can be

higher and lower levels of less than substantial harm

and in the officer report we've set out

what we think the level of less than substantial harm is.

My question to you is,

do you agree that it is less than substantial harm

but a high level of less than substantial harm.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:32:16

My question back to you, as you are the professional officer

and I am simply an elected member,

is above less than substantial harm,

is there only one category, in other words, substantial harm?

And the definition of substantial harm

is that there is a direct detrimental impact

on a specific building.

In other words, is that the only binary option we have?

Mr Charles Power - 2:32:45

The above less than substantial is only substantial.

And under the planning guidelines, I can read this out.

The impact is usually evaluated

across several specific categories.

Demolition or destruction, loss of key fabric,

setting degradation, fundamentally changing character.

And under setting degradation,

development within the surrounding area

that causes major lasting damage to how the asset is appreciated or experienced.

That's it.

In which case I would think those two are triggered by this development.

But our heritage officer hasn't said that.

No, but we as members...

You, you as the committee...

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:33:29

We as members make the decision, the officers advise, if I interpret the constitution correctly.

Mr Charles Power - 2:33:33

I was not suggesting anything else.

I was just about to say you as the committee get to make the decision.

the water's been waiting patiently.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:33:41

We might well be going to a vote on this, the only thing that concerns me of not going

to the debate is if it goes to appeal and we haven't debated it, we lost on an occasion

by not debating it in committee, the item not coming up and going through, or at least

us saying actually as a committee we're sort of agreeing or talking. We had things knocked

out and we lost the case because we didn't debate a particular item. So actually by not

debating I'd like to know legally whether we actually are weak in our case.

Well we are debating it right now.

Sorry?

We're debating it right now.

No we're not.

Yes we are.

We actually have got a proposal.

Yes but we're still going around the room and we're still looking at all the angles.

As long as we do that, that's fine.

Councillor Ashman.

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 2:34:23

So this is a point of debate that I would like to make and I would like to put forward

my views.

So I would argue that before we get to footnote seven,

that this application actually,

there is a strong contribution to purpose D

to preserve the setting and special character

of historic towns.

I appreciate that the officers have measured it

as moderate, but based on the heritage officers' statement,

the main issue around it being moderate

is that it's separated to some extent from historic aspects.

That pulls it down from strong.

The heritage officer says that the nearby listed buildings

benefit from the proximity to open land.

So the actual being close to the open land

is what is contributing to that purpose.

That then pushes its back up into strong

where it forms part of the setting of the historic town

and makes a considerable contribution.

I don't see anything in the moderate section that applies here that hasn't been specifically

called out by the Heritage Officer as being not relevant.

But that is a point of debate that I would put forward to the committee for discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ashman.

Councillor Roberts.

I have got something else, two things to put forward as well for debate.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:35:48

The first one was the Ecology Officer's objection to the baseline assessment.

I know that's been said that we should do that by condition and come back as a

conditional reserve matter.

A condition.

A condition. So it's important for us in assessing this site that we're

agreeing the principle of development on it,

but that BNG development is part of the principle

that we'd be asking to agree.

And so I'd ask the committee whether they are happy

that we are not agreeing it today

and that we would be deferring it

to assessment as a condition.

And the same thing applies for the highways access.

Highways access is the one thing we're meant

to be looking at in this application is the access point.

And yet we're being asked to agree to treat that via a condition rather than us being

able to agree it today.

And I don't think I agree with that.

I think we should be as a committee, if we're going to agree the access point, we should

be agreeing it as part of the application, not deferring it or setting it as a condition.

So those are a couple of points I'd like to put forward as well.

Mr Charles Power - 2:37:19

Clarification on the point of access is that you are agreeing the point of access, the

condition is about where the parking that is being lost due to that point of access

is going to be put. So you are agreeing the point of access, or at least you would be

if you were granting a permission.

And the condition would deal with the relocation

of the parking where that point of access is.

So.

And in which case my point is,

I don't think we can agree the point of access

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:37:55

without having a detailed plan of how that would be treated.

Well, one isn't necessarily required for the other.

You have a detailed plan of where the access is

Mr Charles Power - 2:38:09

and how it is proposed to be,

you don't have a detailed plan of where the parking

that is displaced is because that is being dealt with

by a condition and your highways officers are content

that that can be dealt with by a condition

because there is enough highways land outside the site

for them to be happy that you could get

five parking spaces within there.

That's why it's being dealt with by a condition.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:38:38

and I understand that's your position I don't agree with that I think we should

be a good we should be agreeing the access point and the treatment of how

the alternative provision is provided as part of our deliberations and I'm glad

we're covering that we haven't really covered much of access before materially

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:39:00

so I'm glad you brought that up council waters I think it came up really with

the applicant because the applicant has stated that the access point and not

losing the parking spaces and that they could demonstrate clearly that they were

going to be placed somewhere else was all part of all tied up in one element

and actually if you can't show that you're let's say if they put them on the

other side of the road we would be unhappy because we could see that

actually you won't get a bus to be able to get around in the area so the

the place we were shown they were likely to be, we were uncomfortable that actually that

was physically possible to do. So actually it would then cause problems with the access

and also the traffic on the road. So there's a highways issue related to it. Now maybe

we can condition it and if you can't do it the whole thing falls away. That might be

separate. But at the moment it means that we're uncomfortable with the access point

as it is without having the full detail.

Councillor Tett, did you want, oh Councillor Highne,

you had your hand up.

And it comes back a little bit

to a lack of a highways officer here

Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:40:10

that we could question and to try and understand

why they were happy with the selection,

the point that was being selected,

and not two or three other places that we saw

would have been made more appropriate

if somewhat more costly for the developers to put it elsewhere. So again

lack of a chance to debate it with the highways officer is making it difficult

for us to to agree with this point.

Mr Charles Power - 2:40:38

The point you've made though isn't a planning point so if you there could be

any number of places where the access might be but the access that you are

considering is the one on the plan you are not considering whether you can

redesign the proposal with a different access so I'm afraid that the point

you're making is not a proper planning point

Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:41:07

we are to take it or leave it is what you're saying you have an application

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:41:18

before you that you are here to determine yes so that's that's the

Guidance I made a proposal. I think we've had a significant debate on this

internally both prior to this session and so prior to that ticket section and

Subsequently my proposal still stays on the table, I believe

And my three grounds were on green belt in line with the council's 2025 green belt assessment

secondly AON B or

national landscape is now

triggering paragraph 7 of the MPPF and historic setting and I believe it's

substantial harm in line with the character that's impacted and Mr. Power

read out grounds within the historic setting that were not just about the

demolition of a building but there were also ancillary grounds that could make

it substantial so I believe there are three very powerful reasons why this

should be rejected by this committee and I just like to sit in your guidance Mr.

chairman of whether we are in a position now to take that proposal forward I

gather it would need to be for example seconded Thank You councillor test I'm

just gonna turn to our legal officer who wanted to hear the robust material harms

Ms. Teresa Coppock - 2:42:39

that you defined in your proposal yes for the benefit of the meeting and for

my benefit I'd be grateful if you could go through for each of your reasons

specifying what the harm is for your reasons one two and three and what weight

you're attributing to the harms that you're identifying one two and three

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:43:01

okay in terms of green belt I think this is very substantial harm to the green

belt secondly in AONB again I think there's very substantial harm to the

green belt taken as a whole and we've heard that debate and thirdly in terms

of historic setting against substantial harm based upon the weight impacts upon

the change of the character of the area and I believe there was a second reason

that mr. Powell the setting of the area and some of that relates to the fact

it's on a slope and its proximity to historic buildings as outlined in

in the historic officer's report in this report.

So you're attributing real waste harm on heritage?

Substantial, I think the terminology is substantial

or not substantial.

I believe, given what Mr. Power read out,

we are quite correct in attributing substantial harm

to this as a committee.

Council Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:44:02

I would second that proposal,

but I would also propose that we should also

have as a grounds for refusal about that we don't have the the solution on the

highways access presented for us to consider but I'm not sure whether you

might need to test whether other members want to come in on that criteria as well

well I'll ask our legal officer to summarise the proposal from the reasons

you have given materially and then we'll head to a vote if you're happy to second

Yeah, yeah sure

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:44:43

Sorry, I'm just on the point of the green belt harm as part of

Identifying green mark harm counsellors need to undertake the very special circumstances test

But just just just to gently remind just so we can say that that's been undertaken

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:45:02

I'd like then just formally to play some record but having had this discussion and debate

I believe there are not and have not been demonstrated very

special circumstances

For the release of this from the green belt and that is also evidenced by the council's own green belt assessment

That's just been carried out

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:45:22

Specifically asked the applicant about very special circumstances and they confirmed they were not relying on that for this application

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:45:33

So the very special circumstance test comes into play when the development is considered

inappropriate development in the green belt.

So in the circumstance that the agent may have been leading to is because they consider

this like grey belt.

They didn't need to do the very special circumstance test.

But because if members are finding that there is the site is inappropriate development in

Greenbelt the benefits of the scheme versus the harm needs to be put in the

balance and that harm can be any harm that members may identify such as lack

of parking provision but those need to be set out and then said overall that

the harms outweigh the benefits and that's how we move forward with the

inappropriate development in the Greenbelt reason for refusal. So can I

suggest that members have a look at section 7 of the report which is the

Mr Charles Power - 2:46:25

weighing and balancing section and if you look at benefits of the proposal and

the harm of the proposal you can agree or disagree as to what the benefits of

the proposal are and you have to remember that your officers have set out

what they think the benefits of the proposal are and fully accept that it's

up to yourselves to decide the weight but at least if you can have a look at

the benefits and the arms you could agree that the officers have got

matters that are beneficial and matters that are harmful,

correct, but you're giving them different weight,

it is up to you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:47:25

Fine, I have read this report.

I understand that the applicant has put forward benefits

and those are repeated in the report.

I still believe very clearly that the damage

to the green belt does not merit very special circumstances

for the release of that green belt.

I note the applicant's view and the officer's view,

but as the officer said earlier, these are subjective.

They are a professional opinion, they are not gospel.

So therefore, it is the right of members to disagree

and attribute different weightings

as we have indicated we wish to do so.

Mr Charles Power - 2:48:03

I wasn't suggesting that you couldn't.

I was just asking for clarity on,

do you agree that housing delivery is a benefit?

Do you agree that affordable housing is a benefit?

Do you agree that you can't agree that compliance,

well, you can agree.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:48:17

Can I just ask the officer,

you're pushing us very hard on this,

what is the merit in a statement about the applicant's view

of the benefits of their scheme being included

in our reasons for refusal?

Mr Charles Power - 2:48:31

This isn't, this is your officer's view of the benefits

and disbenefits of this.

The point is that we will have to defend an appeal if you refuse this.

Well, that's B1, yes.

And we need to know what it is that we are defending.

And it is very difficult to stand in front of a public inquiry

and to try and or even to prepare for a public inquiry

if you haven't got clear ideas as to what the argument is

and what the waiting is that the council is giving to that argument

so that we, as your officers, can defend the argument.

I thought we'd done this, so I'm a little surprised.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:49:17

We seem to be going around in circles a bit.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:49:22

I do find this extraordinary that we have this battle

when we want to turn something around.

And when you employ Barrister, if you're the plaintiff,

you ask him to say one thing,

and he gives you the whole argument of how you do that.

And if you're the defendant, he gives you the absolute opposite argument.

We are asking you to help us here please, Mr Powers,

so that we can take this forward and give the...

We put the meat on the bones to make our arguments read with something you feel you can defend at appeal,

if you feel it's going to go to appeal.

I'm just going to go to Councillor Townsend.

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:50:00

and correct me if I'm wrong but I would it be helpful for members to have a very

brief adjournment to discuss our reasons and just so we get this absolutely right

I don't know what my fellow members think of that but it sounds like it's

very important we get I also minded to do that as well if we can't

the

If I may just suggest points for

Ms. Rachel Marber - 2:50:26

discussion for the adjournment. I suggest that members have in

mind similar weighting to benefits that I've set out in my

report. But in terms of harm, go with the harm as just set out by

Chancellor Tett, which is substantial harm

to inappropriate development in the greenbelt,

substantial harm to children's national landscape,

and if I understood correctly,

substantial harm, well, substantial weighting of harm

to impact on heritage and heritage assets.

And then they may want to consider the other harm

generated from the proposal,

which I've also set out within my report,

which is the BNG and the lack of breeding birds as well.

when considering the overall assessment of whether there are very special

circumstances.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:51:22

They mirror almost exactly and all credit to Ms Marbla. I mean they are

exactly what I just set out in terms of what I believe should be the reasons for

Cllr David Moore - 2:51:30

rejection. Members are we still minded for an adjournment? So we'll have to go

Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:51:36

to a vote. I think that that said it although it missed out the highways.

Cllr David Moore - 2:51:42

Okay well we'll move to a vote then and who will in favour of an adjournment to

go through these reasons. All in favour please vote. Do we? Yes we do.

Those against an adjournment and any abstentions?

That's carried.

We'll now adjourn.

6 PL/25/2404/OA Land To The South East Of Whielden Street, Amersham

Cllr David Moore - 2:52:14

Cllr David Moore - 2:52:19

I'm going to kindly summarise the motion before us.

Thank you Chairman.

So what I have is as follows.

Ms. Teresa Coppock - 2:52:33

So the summary of the reasons for refusal would be along the lines of, in the opinion

of the local planning authority the site is not grey belt as there are footnote 7

strong reasons for refusal relating to the national children's landscape and

heritage harms and there is strong performance under purpose D of the

green belt purposes. Therefore the proposed development represents

inappropriate development in the green belt to which substantial weight is

attributed and the proposed development causes visual and spatial harm to the

openness of the Green Bell. The harm identified arising from the proposal in

relation to the National Children Landscape is the landscape character

harm and in terms of heritage harm impacts on the setting, degradation and

character of heritage assets.

And further to that, there is a lack of information

relating to breeding birds, and also insufficient detail

on parking provision.

And that having regard to the benefits and the harm arising

from the proposal, very special circumstances

have not been demonstrated as the harm to the green belt

by reason of inappropriateness and the other harms that have been identified resulting from the proposal

is not clearly outweighed by other considerations. So that's the first one.

The second reason for refusal relates to heritage harm and that substantial weight

is attributed to heritage harm to the old Amersham town and also to the listed buildings

that are listed in the Planning Officer Reports.

And that this represents substantial harm and is a strong reason for refusal.

The third reason for refusal relates to national landscape harm

and the proposed development causes substantial harm to the character and

scenic beauty of the children's national landscape. And in terms of the policies

that have been contravened, I'll just run through those. So for the Greenbelt

reason for refusal, the policies that have been contravened by the proposed

development are policies CS4, CS22, CS24 and CS32 of the Children's Core Strategy.

And for the Children's Local Plan, the policies that have been contravened are

CA2 GB2 GC1 LB2 LS Q1 and NC1

And for the heritage policies that have been contravened, those policies are Policy CS4

of the Chiltern Core Strategy and policies LB2 and CA2 of the Chiltern

Local Plan and the MPPF. And for the National Landscape Harm the policies

that have been contravened are policies LSQ1 of the Chilterns Local Plan and

and policy CS22 of the Chilters course strategy.

And I would just actually comment that

because the proposed development, had it been proposed for approval,

there would be a need for Section 106 agreement.

So there should be another reason added relating to the Section 106 agreement

and the absence of it. So for example, had the above reasons for refusal not have

applied it would have been necessary for the applicant and the local planning

authority to enter into a satisfactory section 106 agreement to secure the

provision of planning obligations including monitoring and financial

contributions related to travel plan monitoring and also planning

obligations for open space and management and maintenance, the provision

of affordable housing, the provision of public right -of -way improvements and the

adoption by a management company and maintenance of suds. And in the absence

of such provision the proposal is contrary to the relevant local plan

policies which would be grateful if you could delegate to officers to put those

in so that in total makes four reasons for refusal and so I just wanted to

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:58:20

cheque with Councillor if that represents what you wanted to propose. I think you have very

eloquently and professionally describe the reasons that I gave earlier. Thank

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:58:31

you. Thank you very much. We now move to a vote on the proposal before us that we

refuse this application on the following grounds that have just been read out as

per Councillor Tett's proposal. All in favour that we refuse this application?

All against?

And abstentions.

Mr Chairman, I abstain.

Cllr Martin Tett - 2:59:04

For the audience, Mr Chairman, you may wish to clarify the reason for your abstention, just in case.

Oh yes, as Chairman I don't vote. That's why I abstain.

Cllr David Moore - 2:59:10

So that proposal that we refuse has been carried.

Thank you very much for your patience.

7 PL/25/2252/FA Amersham and Chiltern Rugby Club, Ash Grove, Amersham

Apologies for such the late time, but we now move on to agenda item 7.

PL 25 2252 slash FA, Amersham and Chilford Rugby Club in Ashgrove, Amersham.

And I'm going to hand over to Melanie who will kindly introduce this item in a few moments.

But please get comfortable for the next item. Thank you.

Sorry, a court.

Whenever you're ready, Melanie, thank you.

Good evening.

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:00:47

So this application relates to the Amersham and Chiltern Rugby Club on Ash Grove, Amersham.

It seeks planning permission for enhanced sporting facilities to include a new 3G pitch,

four -paddle tennis courts and a perimeter exercise path.

Also proposes a single -storey extension to the existing clubhouse, improvements to the

recreation area, car park and access on Ash Grove and the erection of a 60 -bed care home

in the southeastern corner of the site.

The application has been called to Planning Committee by Councillor Pinckney and Councillor

Thornton.

The recommendation is to defer and delegate the application to the Director of Planning

Growth and Sustainability to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a legal

agreement to secure contributions to healthcare and travel plan monitoring.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of this resolution, such as to

elite vary or add conditions, planning obligations or informatives prior to the

decision being issued the director of planning growth and sustainability has

delegated authority to do so in consultation with the chairman provided

that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the eastern south

Buckinghamshire area planning committee's resolution. Since the

publication of the report a further 35 letters of support have been received

and one representation which includes multiple submissions which has made

objections to the application and raises concern over the way in which the

application has been assessed. These are all available for committee members to

view online but officers are confident that the application has been assessed

properly and fairly against national guidance and local development plan

policies. Where necessary advice has been sought from specialist consultees and

taken into account in the recommendation. With regard to the published report

Paragraph 5 .45 states that it would not be reasonable

or necessary to require signage parking restrictions

or a parking management plan to be implemented on Ashgrove.

However, following clarification from the highway authority

is now considered that a condition would meet the test

and therefore an additional condition is proposed

to require this, which has been agreed by the applicant.

Paragraph 5 .53 states that a condition is recommended

in relation to opening hours.

However, in consultation with the Environmental Health Officer,

this is no longer considered appropriate

as the proposals have not been identified

as having an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

And finally, an additional condition is proposed

to require details of the materials to be used

in the construction of the Paddle Tennis Courts,

which was erinally missed off the list of conditions

published in the report.

Finally, the legal officer has recommended some minor amendments to the wording of the

recommended conditions.

So I will now go through the plans and provide a summary of the assessment and recommendation.

The application site is located at the end of Ash Grove on the western edge of Amersham.

It is within the green belt and adjacent to the Children's National Landscape, Ancient

Woodland and Tree Preservation Orders.

It is also within the zone of influence of the Chiltern Beechwood Special Area of Conservation.

This slide shows the northern part of the site, including the extensions to the existing

clubhouse, the improvements to the northern car park and the improvements to Ash Grove

and the four -paddle tennis courts in the bottom left corner.

The perimeter exercise path obviously runs around the outside of the site.

This is the southern part of the site showing the 3G pitch, drainage pond and the new care

home.

This just shows the proposed pitch layout, the proposed paddle tennis courts subject

to conditions about the materials.

This is the floor plan for the extensions, so the grey bits show the proposed extensions.

These are the elevations, so the attached bit, the stripy bit, show the proposed extensions,

so demonstrating that in officers' opinions it's not a disproportionate addition to the

original building and very similar to that which was approved in 2012 but not implemented.

This slide shows the proposed improvements to Ash Grove.

The carriageway will be a minimum of 4 .5 metres wide with a 2 metre wide footway on the southern

side and a metre maintenance strip along the northern side and then access down to the

care home on the left side there.

This plan shows the site plan for the care home in the context of the existing dwellings

and the existing pitches.

And the proposed care home with the cycle store to the left and the bin store up to

the top.

This shows the proposed elevations of the care home.

It's obviously a large building, three storeys in height, but it has been broken up in terms

of the facade and different kind of roof forms with the gables.

And then the CGI showing potential materials obviously subject to a condition of the exact

details to be approved.

And this CGI also shows the care home on the slightly lower land level than the pictures

and the screening existing vegetation behind.

The floor plans, I appreciate you can't see the detail but it's here, we need to refer to it.

It's 20 bedrooms on the ground floor and first floor and then 20 bedrooms on the second floor

and the third floor consists mainly of the staff room, laundry and changing rooms for the staff.

There's the bin and bike stores for the care homes, space for 12 bikes, nine large bins,

and then the aerial view of the existing site.

So just to summarise the assessment and recommendation, in terms of the principle of development,

a thorough assessment has been carried out which concludes that the proposed development

is not inappropriate in the green belt.

This is because each element of the scheme meets one of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in paragraphs

154 and 155 of the NPPF

Specifically the land where the care home is proposed is considered to meet the definition of grey belt

There is a demonstrable unmet need for c2 accommodation and the site is in a sustainable location

the development also meets the golden rules and in accordance with paragraph 158 of the NPPF a

development which complies with the golden walls should be given significant

weight in favour of the grant permission. With regard to the impact on the

character of the area it's acknowledged that the proposed care home is a large

building that will change the appearance of the site. However the proposed design

breaks up the facade to add interest and variance and the use of appropriate

materials will ensure it assimilates into its setting. It's also situated on

lower land and is well screened to the south and east by existing woodland. The

highway authority have confirmed that the additional vehicle movements can

safely be accommodated onto the local highway network and adequate visibility

displays can be achieved in both directions. They've also confirmed that

due to adequate on -site parking and proposed restrictions on Ash Grove the

proposals are unlikely to result in any parking overspill onto the local highway

network. In consultation with specialists, no objections are raised by officers

with regard to ecology, trees, waste or environmental health. Whilst additional

information is required in relation to drainage and archaeology, officers

consider that sufficient detail has been submitted at this stage and the

remaining information can be required by condition. In summary, the proposed

development is considered to comply with the relevant development plan policies

and NPPF. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to

conditions and a legal agreement. Thank You Melanie and thank you for the

officers report. There are four public speakers on this item and as like before

Cllr David Moore - 3:09:24

you have three minutes. I understand two of the speakers are going to split that

but we'll have questions from members at the end. So would Councillor Kelly

Thornton who's actually not here again the clerk will kindly read out her

Alice Williams - 3:09:38

statement. Thank you. Chairman, members, I called this application in on a neutral

basis because it has generated significant public interest and raises

important planning issues that deserve to be debated openly by elected members.

This application is unusual because it is not simply a care home proposal and

it is not simply a sports facility proposal. It combines a 60 bed care home

with substantial investment in the Rugby Club,

including a 3G pitch, paddle courts,

clubhouse improvements, drainage works,

parking improvements, and wider site enhancements.

The level of public engagement reflects that complexity.

The officer report records substantial support

and substantial opposition.

That alone demonstrates why this decision

should be made by committee

rather than under delegated powers.

My purpose today is not to advocate approval or refusal.

It is to highlight the key planning issues that members must weigh in reaching their own judgement

First Greenbelt policy the site lies within the Greenbelt and the application raises important questions regarding Greenbelt policy

Graybelt policy openness and the extent to which the proposed development complies with national and local planning policy

Members will need to consider the applicants case the officer assessment and the implications of the emergency grey belt guidance

Secondly, community benefit.

The proposal includes significant investment in sporting

facilities and the applicant argues that the care home

enables improvements that would otherwise not be delivered.

Members will need to consider the weight that should properly

be given to those claimed benefits.

I urge members to support the ICB's request for a health care

contribution payment using a section 106 agreement.

This will secure much needed funding for local health care

provision.

Thirdly, transport and access.

Many residents have raised concerns regarding Ashgrove, parking, traffic generation and

access arrangements.

Equally, members will note that the highway authority has assessed the application and

reached its own professional conclusions.

It is for this committee to determine what weight should be given to those competing

views.

Fourthly, amenity and environmental impacts.

Members should carefully consider issues including noise, lighting, landscape

impact, ecology, drainage and the effect of the development on neighbouring

residents and the wider character of the area. Those have featured prominently

through the consultation process. I therefore ask members to give careful

consideration to all of the evidence before them and to reach a decision

based on planning policy, planning evidence and the long -term interests of

the community. Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 3:12:18

Thank you very much. We now move to our next speaker.

Councillor Simon Woodhead of Amersham Town Council you have three minutes you

Public Speaker - 3:12:27

may start when ready. Thank you. Chairman, members of the committee, officers and

members of the public. Amersham Town Council has no objection to this

application however we did raise a number of queries to which the applicant

provided positive responses as acknowledged in the officers report. We

also recognise the potential benefits to the community provided both by the

proposed care home and the expansion of the facilities of the rugby club which

has been part of life in Amersham for a very long time.

We note the various concerns raised by the application

which again are covered by the officer's report. In summary

if committee is minded to approve the application we would ask that both the

requirements of the local health service in recognition of the load

potentially being thrown on by the care home

represented by the ICB and the concerns of the residents around the club. Their

concerns about potential traffic and parking issues are recognised in any

Cllr David Moore - 3:13:29

permission granted. Thank you. Thank you very much.

public speaker - 3:13:34

Now we move to Mark Percival and Francis Charig who are both objectors. I

understand you split your time so Mark you have 135 seconds and Francis have

45 seconds, you may start when ready.

Good evening, Chair, good evening, public.

Firstly, starting with statutory responsibility,

section one, subsection two of the Highways Act,

outside Great London, the Council of a County

or the Highways Authority for all highways in the county,

whether or not maintainable at the public expense.

Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984

requires a highway authority to secure

expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicle and other traffic

including pedestrians. Importantly the statutory duty extends to all lawful

users of the highway. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework local

planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable

development could be made acceptable through the use of a condition. Paragraph

57 of the National Planning Policy Framework conditions should only be

imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and the development to be permitted

and must be enforceable and precise.

Condition 23. In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of

the highway and of the development. Key words. Approve drawing 240195 -010 revision E and

for the avoidance of doubt shall include the widening of Ashgrove Carriageway to 4 .8 metres

where possible. That is not enforceable, that is not precise, it is not up to mustard. Condition

23 fails to secure a safe carriageway width. Condition 23 does not make the development

safe. The request to widen Ashgrove to 4 .8 metres where possible fails miserably as a

condition. It is a future, it is futile to make an unacceptable development acceptable

through use of a condition.

The submitted drawing referenced shows a courage

where width of only 4 .5 metres throughout Ash Grove.

The manual for streets makes it clear that width

below 4 .8 metres creates operational safety constraints

for vehicles passing a van, car cannot pass,

laundry, waste, ambulances and any large cars cannot pass.

Two vans require 5 .5 metres.

The facts of this matter are Ashgrove is 2 .8 metres to up to 4 .5 metres wide at

the moment. This is not a safe area for this development. If the development goes

ahead the council, the Highway Authority have failed their statutory duty. It's

not safe. Council 23 fails to condition 23 fails to secure a safe carriageway

width. This planning application should be rejected.

It certainly has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

I would say that the main item I would like to raise

is the fact that the noise is just unsustainable.

Nobody has done the math.

The time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

It's three minutes.

Yes, as I stated before, and that was three minutes.

But thank you.

We now move to Miles Young, who is the agent.

You also have three minutes.

You may start when ready.

Chairman, members, thank you.

Speaker - 3:17:11

Yes, Miles Young from Westbourne Planning, agent for the Rugby Club and their partner

EQ Care.

I have just four matters to raise for you this evening.

First on Greenbelt, officers have concluded after rigorous assessment that the site is

grey belt.

it's outside the national landscape and there are no heritage assets you'll be

relieved. The proposal meets a demonstrable need it's in a sustainable

location and complies fully with the golden rules but members should take

faith that if grey belt policy did not exist the compelling benefits would more

than outweigh the minimal impact on green belt openness such that very

special circumstances would exist either way. Second the need for the care home is

overwhelming. The needs assessment shows an immediate requirement for 239 beds, rising

to 463 by 2046. The Council's policy officers are using an even higher figure. The existing

stock is ageing and in many cases it's failing. 39 % of care beds are in homes rated by the

CQC as requires improvement. Whereas this proposal delivers a modern wet room facilities,

high levels of nursing and dementia care in precisely the location it's needed

along with the necessary funding for GP improvements. The home would also

generate around 80 wide -ranging jobs not to mention the supply chain benefits.

Third, the sporting and community benefits are exceptional. Sport England,

the RFU, the LTA fervently support the application. The new facilities and other

improvements collectively secure the sustainability of the club but these are

not luxuries they're in fact now the essential ingredients for a modern

successful rugby club. Fourth technical assessments are clear no objections on

highways ecology trees environmental health drainage or waste the care home

is well screened sits on low land and will be assimilated into the landscape

as you saw. The scheme delivers 16 % BNG and protects nearby ancient woodland

crucially Natural England confirms that there will be no adverse impact on the

Bichwood's SAC. Finally I come to the planning balance. It's unequivocal. Your

officers recommend approval, the social economic and environmental benefits are

substantial and will be enduring. The grant of Planning Commission would

represent the single biggest opportunity for the club in 100 years and will ensure

that they remain at Ashgrove. It will also ensure that Amersham's residents

now have access to the later life care that they deserve. Thank you. Thank you

Cllr David Moore - 3:19:50

very much. We now move to Stephen Lawrence who is a supporter. You have

Speaker - 3:19:55

three minutes you may start when ready. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,

I've been a resident of Amersham for over 40 years and I'm very supportive of

this application. I was actually born in Amersham Hospital and in my youth played

rugby at Amersham and Chiltern. After university and nearly 20 years of living

in London, my wife and I returned to Amersham and our son joined the minis section of the

club. I became a coach, referee and a volunteer. As my son progressed through the age groups,

finally playing senior rugby, I consequently understand the financial challenges that the

club faces and the benefits that this proposal can give to the community of Amersham.

Financially I understand that all the proceeds that the club will receive from the care home

developer are being reinvested into facilities for the Amersham community.

Although the club is supported by volunteers, it has significant costs to

ensure that sport is played safely. The club just breaks even and so it's unable

to make the kind of dramatic investment that this opportunity offers. For example,

to instal an all -weather training pitch costs about a million pounds, funds the

club does not have. Turning to benefits, there are five benefits that the

proposal brings to the community of Amersham. Firstly, improving the health of the community.

The club is a beacon for providing sporting facilities for children and young adults.

At a time when there is growing concern over obesity and mental health, the addition of

an all -weather training pitch and the enhanced running facilities will ensure that exercise

can be taken throughout the year. Secondly, improving diversity opportunities. The proposal

to reconfigure and modernise the clubhouse to accommodate women's changing rooms is essential,

giving the growing enthusiasm for women's rugby. Nearly 82 ,000 people attended Twickenham

last year to watch England's women win the Rugby World Cup, a record for women's rugby.

Thirdly, improving sporting opportunities. Paddle tennis is the fastest growing sport

in the UK. Amsham currently does not have any paddle facilities. The proposed courts

are on the far side of the site and consequently will not disturb any nearby residents but will

provide an excellent facility for the community. Fourthly, improving facilities for the elderly.

The increasing prevalence of dementia means that Amersham needs more modern care home facilities.

The proposal is well thought out as the proposed site is on ground that cannot be used for sport

due to its topography. And finally, fifthly, improving car parking. As a volunteer used to

marshal car parking, I recognise that parking is particularly challenging and the proposal

increases the parking capacity by resurfacing and formalising the overflow parking area.

Therefore, I urge you Mr Chairman to support your Planning Officer's recommendation to support this

proposal to make Amersham and Chiltern a sporting centre of excellence for the community of Amersham.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 3:22:54

Thank you very much and thank you to all the speakers.

We now move to members' points and questions of clarification to all the speakers.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:23:02

Councillor Waters and then Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much.

I've got a couple of different people to ask questions of.

The gentleman who only said one word and it was about noise,

and I can only ask questions on what you've actually asked,

but actually could you just clarify what issue you believe there is with noise?

Public Speaker - 3:23:24

public speaker - 3:23:27

The parallel courts are, if you look at the research that's been done, in fact there was

an acoustic report that was completely ignored from the planning officer's report, which

was from a world -class leading acoustic expert.

As I say, that's not appeared anywhere in her report.

That in itself should disqualify this.

If you look at the various articles and you do the actual maths,

I'm facing in my garden, for example, going from 40 decibels,

which is a normal, very quiet place, to doing the maths probably in excess of 100.

I have mental health issues. A percussive noise like that will drive me over the top.

It's completely excessive.

And they promised at the beginning, when they first introduced us and we pointed this out,

They told us that they would happily remove the parallel courts if the rest of the programme could be allowed to go through.

That never happened.

The local residents have been ignored by the rugby club time and time and time again.

They've shown no control over noise, late licencing and so on.

We've had to complain to the police, we've had to complain on numerous occasions about them.

And now here we are, we're expected, we're expected to live, I work outside a lot in

the summer, I have conference calls, I have phone calls, I will lose that amenity completely

as a result of this.

So I feel very passionate about that.

And I'm probably further away than a lot of the others.

So if it's bad for me, what's it like for everybody else?

And in fact, the Human Rights has not been has been ignored, the Human Rights Act, I

can actually quote if you want, the Human Rights Act, which has been ignored in terms

of mental health.

and the requirement to address that which they have not.

Thank you. I can ask those questions of the officers later.

Sure.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:25:14

Okay, thank you. For the applicant, the question I have is getting to the bottom of the width

of the road because obviously if you've got a care home, you've got a busy day with rugby

going on, that happens to be the day when something happens and it's serious. The width

the road is going to be very important leading into the site and I'm not clear

whether you're going to get the 4 .8 or whether you're not and how you're going

to achieve that and I think that's the key point in terms for a lot of people

that will be when we went and looked there was actually really understanding

how that would be achieved and that is a concern the access point.

Speaker - 3:26:02

is a continuous 4 .5 metres and that's because as an unclassified road, we don't need to

meet the rigorous higher standard. You probably also saw on site that we also have to fit

in an improved footway because obviously the sustainability of the site is equally important.

Safe pedestrian access cycle access is just as important

As far as we're aware that the highway authorities is perfectly satisfied with that that kind of width

That's the sort of width you would get within a traditional

residential estate Road

Thank you

Councillor Harris

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:26:45

Thanks so much chairman council waters clarified my position as far as the noise

Councillor Matthews

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 3:26:51

Thank you. Continuing on the point of access, there's something in the report and on the plans that the access to this care home is going to be through the car park.

Can you clarify how that's going to work? Because the same issues would arise with that as it would arrive with the access road.

Speaker - 3:27:12

Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the existing car park will be modified to take a new access road through it and then heading south down towards the car park and arrival to the care home.

that achieves the same dimensions. Yes there is a very minor loss of parking

spaces within the existing car park to achieve that but that is more than made

up for by the improvements to the northern arm that the officer referred

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 3:27:37

to earlier. Thank you. Is the road through the car park going to be absolutely

designated because otherwise people just park all over it because that's what

they do if there's a big event on.

I think first of all just putting my care home

planning consultant hat on, no care home developer

Speaker - 3:27:56

or operator would ever stand for anything

that gets in the way of receiving their staff,

their guests and their deliveries.

So the reality of that I think will be rare

but to reassure you the road is clearly marked

as a road through a car park, no longer a car park.

Councillor Roberts.

Yes, I just wanted to understand with the rugby club

improvements about how, what the intention is around

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:28:28

increased use of the facilities and increased hours.

The reason for that is, I'm asking that,

is because that relates to potential impact

on neighbouring residents and the,

both in terms of traffic and noise and so on.

Thank you, Councillor.

Speaker - 3:28:51

I think the first point to make is that the club already

has no planning controls for hours of use.

And as you heard earlier from the lead officer,

that would remain the case.

And I think there's an overarching point here

and that is that these proposals aren't necessarily

about increasing intensity but doing what the club does better. They're

far more qualitative than they are quantitative.

Cllr David Moore - 3:29:24

Thank you and if there are no further questions or clarification to the

speakers I'd like to thank the speakers for coming here today. We now move to

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:29:33

technical questions to the officers. Do any members have any questions to the

Councillor Harris.

Did we have a plan of where everything's going?

Because obviously it's not in the pack

that we could put up on the screens, please.

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:29:57

They've split the site into two.

That was how they were submitted.

So depending on what you want to talk about,

north or south.

I just wanted to look to see how fitted that was all

and the question of the road regarding the care home.

Councillor Tett.

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:30:15

Yes, I'm concerned about the issue

that was raised about access

and I'd just like to ask the officers

how they respond to the issue of the narrowness

of the access road onto what will be quite,

from the sound of it, an intensively used site

both for the sporting and for the care home.

Yeah I mean we're guided by our by the Highway Authority and the consultation

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:30:41

response that was received so that was in Appendix A in full and online to see

and as they have assessed the width of the road and the proposals noting that

the actual highway is Weeden Lane, Ashgrove is the applicant said is an

unclassified road but we are guided by the Highway Authority that raised no

objection in terms of the proposals and the well proposals for the sporting

facilities care home and the improvements to Ashgrove. So just again

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:31:13

I'm sorry you know I like to be very clear about officers responses so the

fact it's 4 .5 metres I think the applicant said was known to the

highways officers also the likely volume of traffic that would be generated was

known to the highways officers and they raised no objection. Correct. Okay thank

Thank you.

And one other quick question, if I may.

On Greybelt, one of the requirements

is that the site is sustainable.

Could you just tell me how the sustainability

of the site was assessed in transport terms

if there is no public transport to the site?

Yes, so I can refer to a paragraph in my report

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:31:56

where I measured the distance from the site itself

to the town centre of Amersham.

So that to me includes the train station, tube station,

and it was a 20 minute walk between the town centre

to the site itself.

As set out in the report, we looked at things

like not necessarily the future occupiers of the care home

who are going to likely have low levels of mobility,

but more importantly visitors to the site, staff working at the site and those

using the sporting facilities and we considered that that 20 -minute walk

offered a range of transport modes of transport so walking but from tube train

the nearest bus stop is on Copperkins Lane about 500 metres to the north.

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:32:50

Just for me I just want again to be very clear the fact that there's a care home

on the site which is likely to contain people who are both vulnerable and

potentially elderly the 20 -minute walk presumably by a fit you know adult is

still regarded as sustainable in their regard is that correct

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:33:17

yes that's great Wow like I said we're not we're not considering necessarily

the future occupiers of the care home who are likely to be staying there

whilst their visitors and the staff travel to and from the site more

frequently and regularly. I'm very sorry to keep coming back on this but

sustainability presumably relates to the occupants of the care home and I can

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:33:43

imagine for example a care home adjacent to a high street for example in the

former Chiltern District Council offices

or something like that.

I just find it surprising that this site

is regarded as sustainable, being a 20 minute walk

for the occupants potentially of a care home.

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:34:09

As previously, that was my professional view.

If you come to a diff, that was how,

that it's paragraph 5 .21 to 5 .24 which sets it out in full was my assessment.

Just to follow on from what Melanie was saying, we did do some research into this and we were

sort of weighing up the issues related to the application, in particular the sustainable

location and there are a couple of appeals and sort of nationwide which

refer to large care homes and we looked at our inspectors that assess the issue

of sustainability and what you're really looking at is sort of looking at how the

traffic movements, the attendees if you like to the care home, how they arise so

different care homes operate in different ways obviously this is

proposed to be a high level of care for dementia patients so you wouldn't expect

patients to be doing a lot of travelling from the care home. Most of the

traffic movements and people coming back and forth are staff and visitors, whereas

Mr Mike Shires - 3:35:23

if it was say a retirement home then you would expect residents to be doing a lot more

travelling so you would be taking into account that as well. So both the

inspectors for the care home appeals really honed in on the staff and the

and in terms of the traffic movements,

the toing and froing,

and whether it was a sustainable location for those,

whether there were different travel choices,

different modes of public transport for them to choose from.

And if it was the case that it was,

then they concluded it was a sustainable location,

which is the approach we've taken here.

Councillor Harris, then Councillor Waters,

then Councillor Townsend.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:36:04

I just hope you might be of assistance to Councillor to say that having lost my father

to dementia, people don't tend to go anywhere from the care home.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:36:11

It's visitors that are the consideration and sadly they tend to drop off in numbers as

well so you don't get a great deal of pressure from vehicle movements other than deliveries,

etc.

Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:36:24

Just in killing it going on that point, obviously when you've got a care home like this, there's

likely to be quite a lot of shift working.

So when you are looking at it, presumably you're looking at when the busses actually

do run along Copperkins Lane and how regularly and what hours they do, because quite often

none of the busses in the Ambusham area don't actually go that late and probably aren't

that useful, particularly if you get to weekends.

So, the sustainability, probably some assessment on that, I don't know whether you've actually

looked at that element of it.

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:37:04

I think considering it in the round, we can't deny that some people will drive to the site,

but we've got to consider it in the round in terms of is this a sustainable location,

particularly referring to policy paragraphs 110 and 115 of the MPPF.

So yes, of course, during the night times of shift patterns,

we can't deny that some people will drive to the site.

And the point was brought up in paragraph 23,

sorry, condition 23.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:37:35

The wording, I never really liked the where possible bit.

It's a bit vague because it could be you are a couple of feet basically at 4 .8

and the rest is actually as narrow as anything.

So could that be beefed up or explained better than that?

It just seems very weak as a condition.

I did ask the question of the highway authority

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:38:00

because I understand the point that you've made.

They like to introduce that element of flexibility

in terms of it's not always possible

until you get to constructing it on the ground.

that that is possible, which is where they've added that phrasing where possible.

I don't know if we can delete that.

Mr Mike Shires - 3:38:40

I know for those of you that are on the site visit the other day,

we did raise some factual points about the access

and we were looking at that side of the site.

So we did go back to the agent

just to seek some real clarity on exactly what was being proposed along that access.

So if I just read you out the paragraph which is supplied to us last night,

which hopefully will set out exactly what's proposed,

and says the junction geometry to Weeden Lane will be improved with formal junction markings

to secure the necessary visibility displays which are shown on the drawings and subject to a condition.

The first 75 metres of Ashgrove from the junction has been designed to provide a

carriageway width of no less than 4 .5 metres, that's in accordance with condition 23,

and a continuous footway on the southern side of no less than two metres in width.

All residential access positions either driveways will be sustained and surface

water drainage appropriately managed. A one metre wide maintenance strip will be

introduced on the northern side of the road. That's basically the existing

landscaping and tidied up. The Arbora Cultural Report confirms no impacts to

trees and no mitigation required other than protective fencing during

construction. Double yellow lines are to be introduced along the full length of

Ashgrove extending into the bellmouth of the junction with Weeden Lane. So I think

initially when the highway sort of looked at it to directly answer your question

there was a little bit of confusion about whether it would be widened or not

and I think in a couple of places supporting information it talked about

widening it doesn't seem to be being widened it's 4 .5 metres at the moment

and that's what it will be retained as there are some incursions from

vegetation etc which means it's not fully that way for long.

Sorry, why does the 4 .8 come in?

Because you haven't mentioned 4 .8 when 4 .8 is what is sitting in on 23 it doesn't talk about 4 .5 it

which doesn't talk about 75 metres of it at 4 .5.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:41:07

It just says, avoid doubt shall include widening

of Ashgrove Carriageway to 4 .8 where possible.

So I was concerned about the where possible.

I wasn't concerned, I thought,

we were actually getting a bit more than where possible,

but actually we're getting a lot less, aren't we?

Yeah, in terms of that condition,

Mr Mike Shires - 3:41:26

obviously there's a slight discrepancy there,

fully acknowledge that in terms of the distance that's specified. If you

were minded to go with the recommendation along the lines of an approval then I would

suggest the deferred delegate subject to an amended condition where we remove

that particular phrase and then in conjunction with the chair afterwards

just to cheque that that's acceptable.

Yeah if we are minded I think that's a good suggestion.

Councillor Tett.

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:41:58

Yes, I just wanted to address a question to the officers around the noise issue raised by the the gentleman for the residence.

He specifically mentioned paddleboard at the back of his garden.

I've just been reading again the section on noise 5 .47 through to 550 etc.

I'd like to understand to what extent the specifics have been taken into

account as opposed to a generalisation of the site and is noise specifically a

planning issue in this context you know or is it not?

So the Environmental Health Officer confirmed that he assessed the noise

assessment that was submitted with the application. He also assessed the report

that was submitted by Objectors which counted that and his view was that the

original noise report that was submitted with the application used reasonable

measures and he was confident that the noise from the paddle court would not

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:43:06

affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. It is noted that the nearest

property to the proposed paddle courts is over 100 metres away it's about 108

metres away and the Environment Health Officer did say that we as a Buckinghamshire

Council we have allowed paddle tennis courts closer to residential properties

than that and whilst concern is sometimes raised to propose paddle courts

they haven't resulted in any noise complaints to the environmental

health team. Just to add on to that quickly, what are the hours of operation for these

courts? Is that obscured by a condition? Is that to manage that noise? At the moment there aren't any planning conditions to control the hours of operation at the rugby club at the moment and because there wasn't any adverse impact on neighbouring

amenity it wasn't considered that a conditioned to restrict operating hours

would meet the conditions the tests for conditions

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:44:10

councillor tell what well I just wonder whether I mean I want to first of all

just to confirm that they've looked at the specific of the paddle court rather

than if you like a generalised approach to the noise and what I'm hearing the

office say is they have looked specifically at the paddle court and its

proximity to rear gardens which is important given the residents issues. I

just wonder whether it would be and this may be a question for the debate so I

take your guidance chairman whether it is possible to impose a condition about

Cllr David Moore - 3:44:42

the hours during which the panel court would operate. I do if certainly if we

are minded I think that's a good suggestion but we'll leave that to the

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:44:48

debate. Councillor Townsend. Thank you also in relation to noise you made the

point earlier in relation to sustainability that you had looked at the distinction between

the needs of, for example, residents of a retirement home versus the high needs, sort

of needs of, high dependency needs of the residents of a dementia care home. Have you

given the same consideration to the impact, the acoustic impact report? Are there any

specific mitigations that will be put into the care home build in order to

mitigate paddle sounds, 3G, lighting etc specifically for high needs residents.

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:45:34

Again quite a technical question for an environmental health expert but we can

rely on the comments that he has assessed the noise impact assessment

that was submitted with the application not only in relation to existing

dwellings that are there already but also in relation to the future occupiers

of the proposed care home. But was that specifically with dementia patients in

mind or just generic care home? Because I think as you pointed out with the

sustainability point there's quite a key difference between the needs. I don't

Mr Mike Shires - 3:46:14

there's a specific assessment for that but looking at the siting of the care

home and the sort of surroundings that it's in and when you consider where a

lot of care homes are sort of built up areas that is a lot more secluded and

away from noise and another sort of influences like lighting than one would

be sort of in a lot of other locations so on that sort of basis I can't really

see too much of an issue.

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:46:43

Okay, again perhaps one that we can look at conditions around in terms of use.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:46:48

Councillor Roberts then Councillor Matthew.

Yeah, just a couple of points.

First one, I just looked up on street view with the Ash Grove and it was the comments

really about the trees because it looks like to me like there were at least three mature

trees on that grass verge there but there was the comment that no mature trees were

going to be lost in widening it.

So I was just wondering if you could comment on that.

No, I mean the short answer is all the trees

that are there along the access

are shown to still be there on the proposed plan.

Mr Mike Shires - 3:47:38

So other than just minor trimming of incursions sort of over the carriageway, which we saw on site, then there's no removal proposed

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:47:46

Okay, so none of the existing mature trees

Removed in this application

Are any of the trees TPO as well

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:48:03

There are TPOs around the site but not those ones located on the Ashgrove access road

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:48:17

Another question really was around the occupants of the care home, as you said, would have

limited mobility, et cetera, but they would have greater medical needs and GP provision.

The nearest GP surgery is quite some way from the site.

How have you taken that into account in the assessment of the application?

So the proposal includes a legal agreement which includes a financial contribution for

the health centre at Amersham.

Okay, but they would be visiting, they'd be visitors to the site and other medical and

support professionals.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

One more?

One more.

A number of the points about the site,

particularly the SAC assessment,

based on this fact of there being limited mobility,

not that I wish ill on the care home provider,

but how does that work with,

if there's a change of business model for this,

the building goes up and then a future day,

there's some other use of the building

that is now in a location and used for some other purpose

that falls into those categories, for instance,

like the Chiltern Beechwood sack requirements.

How is that addressed?

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:49:52

There are conditions proposed which restrict the use

of that care home to not only see to use but quite strict conditions that we've

proposed in consultation with Natural England to ensure that that provision is

kept as applied for.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 3:50:18

Thank you. Councillor Matthews. Thank you. Going back to the issue of noise, the

standards for the residents of the care home there be needed to be substantial

requirements for the building to be able to mitigate that noise so is that in a condition that I cannot see it?

Ms. Melanie Beech - 3:50:47

We've got a condition in relation to the materials to be used for the care home.

I mean a lot of it will be noise mitigation.

I remember reading in relation to the glazing that's used, things like that.

I'll just double cheque whether the condition would include the requirement for that.

So it does include requirements for all the proposed materials and finishes including the windows and doors.

So we would seek to ensure that they were of a specification that would mitigate the noise.

But the noise report also requires certain mitigations with regards to the use of the

ventilation and other plant that's required for the care home.

So can we include that in there?

the debate stage.

Cllr David Moore - 3:52:33

Before we move to debates, I think we've got one more question from Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:52:34

I should have asked it earlier really. If we're worried about hours of operation, what time is training end at the moment?

What time do they take the flood lighting down?

That's a good question.

10 o 'clock. I heard that from the sky somewhere.

Cllr David Moore - 3:53:08

OK. Well, that's useful to know for, again, some of the conditions we're looking at.

So let's move to the debate stage then. Thank you, officers. Thank you for your report.

Anyone want to kick us off? Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:53:23

This strikes me as quite an exciting proposal.

It's always difficult to fund these sort of things and difficult to keep clubs going.

In the majority of former cabinet members for leisure, it was very apparent that clubs

have to diversify to expand and most men's sports have come pretty much to the end of

the line.

And so women's sport is very, very important.

And I think the success of the Red Roses

has played a big part in making rugby attractive to girls.

So the added on section for the women's changing room,

I think is a must.

As far as the paddle courts concerned

and being in the green belt, arguably,

we've just given permission to a site down in Marlowe,

same arguments, and I have no problem

with the paddle cord aspect.

The deficiency as far as the transport's concerned,

that's an existing deficiency.

And I think the important thing here

is that what is being suggested

is they are improving the facilities,

not increasing the facilities.

So yes, whilst the care home is a further pressure,

the club itself, from my experience of other clubs

is that the busiest time for a club

with a men's side in the division they're in

is actually when the kids come up

and it's the minis and the girls that turn up.

And so that's when all the parents are there.

That's when the maximum number of cars are there

unless you're in a quarter final or a semi -final.

So to me, I'm looking for issues with this,

but I can't see a great number at the moment.

I'm willing to hear what other people's views are.

Cllr Martin Tett - 3:55:19

Thank You councillor Harris councillor Tetz yes thank you I have mixed views on

this frankly insofar as I can see some real benefits I'm a keen advocate for

good sporting facilities and this clearly as councillor Harris has said

adds a significant investment in sporting facilities in the Amersham area

and indeed wider and indeed the addition of a new care home particularly for

dementia patients is a significant addition.

My two negatives on this are first of all,

I think the width of the access is worrying.

I just worry that there will be quite heavy use

of this site, both by potential visitors to the care home,

also when there are sporting days and so on,

and whether the width of this is sufficient.

The applicant has said, your rules don't apply to us,

it's private.

I still worry about that aspect in terms of the width

of that.

And also, the gentleman raised the issue of the paddle

court and the impact on adjoining residents.

And I do wonder whether we could add a condition

about the hours of use of that paddle court.

So, mixed view, some real benefits, frankly,

but some concerns representing the concerns

of the local residents.

Thank you, Councillor Tett, and certainly do share

Cllr David Moore - 3:56:34

your view on the condition of the hours.

I think that would be an important condition

if we do approve this.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:56:44

Yeah, I think I'm in a very similar position.

The improvements to the club,

you know, if that was a standalone application,

it would be a fantastic proposal, I think,

that would add a lot to the sports provision

in the local area.

The care home, there's a lot of,

there's obvious need for care home places.

There's questions, I guess, around whether this is the best site in the area, but it

is a site in the area.

The only support, the idea of having a planning condition on hours, I think that would be

suitable particularly for the paddle courts.

there are storeys around about the effect of them,

but I think that a condition on hours of use

would not be overly restrictive.

The only question is about the access road

and the width of it and how that would be achieved

and in particular the impact that that would have

on the amenity of the residents on Ash Grove.

It's the amount of traffic going through there

and particularly if there's parking on there,

we haven't seen particularly the parking measures

that would be enforced or, you know,

we haven't been able to assess how well it would be enforced

but it's particularly the amenity of those residents

that would be considered and I think the question is

whether that is sufficient enough

that it outweighs the other benefits of the scheme.

So that's where I'm still sitting on the fence,

I guess, at this stage, listening,

listen to what others have to say.

Thank you, Councillor Roberts.

Councillor Hind and Councillor Waters.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 3:58:42

Yeah, I suppose I'm looking at other

padel courts in the area.

There's two padel courts at Great Misketon Tennis Club

and they back onto houses within 15, 20 metres of the courts.

As far as I'm aware, there haven't been very,

if any, complaints about the noise.

They do have restricted hours.

So yeah, that certainly is a thing to consider.

Yeah, I think there's a number with the equivalent condition.

Councillor Waters.

Yeah, I think on this one,

I think people are sort of summing it up pretty well.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:59:18

I think restricted hours are important, I think, on the site, because actually what

you've got now is you are in all weather pitch, which means that will be a lot more evening

usage, paddle courts much more evening usage.

So it actually drives down that particular route of terms of what might not have been

happening already, even though there's floodlighting there.

So it changes the usage and the hours of usage.

I think noise actually one of the things that was mentioned to make sure that it is conditioned

in terms of noise because like the air conditioning etcetera and various heating systems and extractor

fans and all sorts of things on this building to make sure that they are properly conditioned

as well because that is probably going to be probably even more annoying to

residents than some of the other things that are likely to come on to this site

and the other thing the one bit that really concerns me over others is is the

road and it's the lack of clarity in terms of really saying we're not going

to get the 4 .8 and is it really capable of coping with two -way traffic on those

busy times and that's the only question is how can we make sure that we get the most

Cllr David Moore - 4:00:50

we can on that to ensure the greatest width. Thank you Councillor Waters. Councillor Matthews.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 4:00:55

Yeah I agree with all the comments that my colleagues have made. I think we've got to

weigh up the two different issues here. Some of them can be mitigated I think by condition

but it's the access road and what we could do about that and I don't know if the officers

have got any suggestions as to how we can drive and address that particular issue because

the others we can mitigate with the conditions that we're talking about but what can we do

about that?

I think we can get a bit of a break.

Councillor Harris, whilst we just deliberate on that.

Having a bit of assistance, having attended various different sporting functions, usually

on a busy day like today, like is being suggested, and it being volunteers at the club, there's

normally one or two people wandering around with high visons that make sure the roads

are kept clear and everyone's parked where they're supposed to be.

because as I say the busiest days are usually on the weekend when the when the minis etc playing

From my experience of other clubs. I

Only have been to a mission twice

Councillor Roberts

Well, if I may come back on that point

I mean that sort of thing would be enshrined in a in a travel management plan or something with parking management plan

that would that could be a condition of

of the

application could it not yeah we've got a number of conditions in relation to

the access so we've got you know condition 23 which we've talked about

which is about submitting even more details in relation to the access and

the width of it we've got conditions relating to the visibility splays onto

Weeden Lane, we've got condition about a travel plan being submitted. We've got

conditions about providing parking including details of the northern car

Ms. Melanie Beech - 4:03:08

park and the sort of existing car parking area that was referred to with

the road going through it. So we've got lots of conditions to ensure that that

those improvements are practical and implemented before the sporting facilities are brought

into use.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:03:28

We have already discussed though condition 23 that basically doesn't stand up.

So we do need to get some idea of what you actually mean by condition 23 because currently

it has a figure that isn't deliverable.

I mean yeah so the plans show a width of 4 .5 so as suggested we can sort of defer

Ms. Melanie Beech - 4:04:06

to amend the wording of that condition in consultation with the Chairman.

No, defer the, sorry, what's the word I'm looking for?

Delegate the, yeah, sorry.

What were your thoughts on that, Councillor Waters?

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:04:22

It doesn't get us near to the 4 .8, does it?

It's still a narrow road, really.

Yeah, I think the width of the road is the width

of the road and the proposals are as set out to include that maintenance strip,

the footway and the highway authority have raised no objection to that.

I mean just to put it in some sort of context in terms of manual for streets

Mr Mike Shires - 4:04:58

a street width of 4 .1 metres is sufficient for two cars to pass and this

what I'd suggest in with this condition is basically putting a full stop after

of the approved drawing number.

So, not standing the details submitted with the application

prior to the commencement of development,

full details of the works to Ashgrove

and the access shall be submitted

to an approved in writing by the LPA.

This should be based on approved drawing

and then the reference of the detailed access drawing

so we get more specifics on that.

That does specifically measure 4 .5 metres in width,

so width plus the pedestrian sort of walkway along there.

So that would cover it just for removing that anomaly

with the distance and then if we consult with the chair

just on the final details, that would address that issue.

Any other members?

Yes, of course.

Just a very brief comment today.

It's actually a follow -up on Councillor Matthews' points

about the materials and specifically the windows

and the sort of amenity impacts of securing those.

If you were to vote for the recommendation,

then I would just suggest a slight change

to the reason for the condition, condition three,

because at the moment it does require details

of all the materials and the windows and doors,

but the reason is just to secure

a satisfactory external appearance.

So we couldn't actually get anything to be assessed

as part of amenity as that,

but if you add it into the reason, then we could.

Cllr Martin Tett - 4:06:33

Councillor Ted yes, thank you. I'm very grateful for the officers clarification just now about 4 .1 metres being

Sufficient for two cars to pass. Is that correct? Yeah, in which case the 4 .5 or this although it's a narrow road

Actually passes muster in terms of two cars passing as I understand it and you have a paved area for pedestrians as well as I understand

Is that correct?

Have footpath

To make sure I understand what we're being asked to agree. Yeah

Mr Mike Shires - 4:07:09

So is that correct? And if so, I've got a proposal for or four point one metres two cars can pass

You know safely the four point one doesn't include the what the highway

The shortcoming sacral on Ashgrove is proposed to be four point five

Cllr Martin Tett - 4:07:22

I understand that so the 4 .5 is the carriageway and in addition to that there is a pavement or paved area for pedestrians

Yep, and so I think that ticks my box in terms of the road access

I'd rather like it was to be wider

But I think that from what you're telling me meets that requirement. The only issue I've got then is about the hours of use

So what I'm going to propose is that we agree

this application but subject to

the

the restriction on the hours of use of the paddle court.

And I'd like to just defer that to,

or delegate that to the chairman

in consultation with the officers.

Because frankly, I think it's 10 past 11 at night.

And I think rather than debating hours of usage,

I'd much rather that was done maybe tomorrow or whenever

in consultation between the chairman and the officers.

Thank you, Councillor Tett.

Cllr David Moore - 4:08:16

If members are deemed,

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:08:22

to well I'm gonna go to Councillor Tanzer. Sorry I think we should also be giving

the same consideration to usage of the 3d pitch actually in terms of noise and

light so just making sure they're both in that bracket. Maybe I can just amend my

Cllr Martin Tett - 4:08:37

proposal then that the hours of usage of the sporting facilities are subjects

that we delegate to the chairman in consultation with the officers.

I appreciate the comments.

Mr Mike Shires - 4:09:16

The only sort of sticking point there really is that the existing sports facilities on

the site have got no such restriction so I think you would really struggle to

demonstrate a condition for the new playing pitch would meet the tests for

conditions when there's no such restriction at the moment at a push you

could justify the paddle courts because they are wholly new facility but I

really think in terms of the playing pitches that would be a real struggle in

In which case, based on that, I suggest we limit it to the Paddle Court.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 4:09:48

Councillor Matthews and Councillor Roberts and Councillor.

In terms of the pitches, the issue with the noise from the 3G pitch is the impact on the

residents of the care home. This is a new facility and it's much closer to the care

home than some of the other houses. I think that there is a justification for putting

a control on the usage of that because you're looking at an impact of something that doesn't

exist at the moment and would exist with this.

My other point is on condition three. In addition to the changes that the officer suggested,

it should include a reference to the type of plant that's used because the noise impact

assessment says that a specific type of quiet plant must be used on the facility to enable

the limits to be achieved. So there needs to be an addition relating to that in that

condition.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 4:10:51

Just to say that it's already lighting on this side of the one pitch on the care home

side they're talking about turning that through 40 at night degrees 45 degrees

so they'd be different the paddle course I would suggest from 7 in the morning

till 10 at night be the latest or I I didn't think realistically can I

Cllr Martin Tett - 4:11:18

suggest we delegate that to you chairman rather than doing I mean it's temporary

we could pass 11 at night no I agree I think we should consultation with the

I think is sensible

Okay, so we have one proposal on the table right now

Do we have a seconder?

So this is councillor text proposal that we approve subject to a condition on the paddle courts for hours of use

Hours are used to be determined by the chairman. Is that correct? And do you have any other?

suggestions or conditions on that beyond that or was that there are conditions

outlined in the officers report which would still be state yes but none in

addition of beyond that well I don't believe we can because the the other

concerning area is the highways access and the information that we've been

given by the officers that actually 4 .1 metres is adequate for the cars to pass

if it's 4 .5 it clearly exceeds that therefore it's very difficult to find a

substantial reason that the highways would be inadequate. I believe.

Councillor Matthews.

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 4:12:24

I also need to add in the additional wording in condition 3 and I still think that we should

put a condition on the use of the pitch.

You mentioned there was a statutory limitation to the condition on the pitches.

So that's a possibility that we can put a condition on the picture as.

Yeah well we can do that in consultation.

I think that that's a condition we can have.

Did you want to second that then, if you're happy with those?

I'm happy to accept Councillor Matthew's amendment to my motion.

Thank you.

OK, if there are no other proposals on the table, we will move to a vote.

So, members who are all in favour of the proposal, subject to the conditions we've suggested,

in consultation with the Chairman, please raise your hands.

All those against.

And one abstention as Chairman.

That item is carried.

Thank you everyone.

Thank you, officers.

Thank you, members.

8 PL/25/6029/FA Land at Old Jobs, Narcot Lane, Chalfont St Peter

Just one more item left on the agenda.

Thank you very much for your patience, which is agenda item eight,

which is PL 2506029FA Lander Old Jobs,

Narcot Lane in Chalfont St. Peter and Kirby.

He's been waiting very patiently.

Can I just clarify, I thought the sidebar discussion was that we would only take

item the third application and seeks at that point are we proposing to go on to

the fourth item now there was no there was no suggestion we were gonna go

through all items if members are content of course we can have a vote if you wish

no I thought we had but we know no no there was no agreed have we got any

speakers here for it yes there are who've waited very patiently so thank

you thank you very much so Kirby's gonna introduce the item has been waiting very

patient as well. Thank you. Thank you everyone.

Kirby MacInnis - 4:15:15

Mr Ben Robinson - 4:15:23

Cllr David Moore - 4:15:35

Chairman, I'm going to say this and I'm sorry I'm happy to get voted.

I clearly had a misunderstanding about what we discussed outside, which I completely accept

obviously.

I just think that gone quarter past 11 at night, we've got an application here that

actually warrants substantial discussion.

It's a meaty item.

It's another green belt development.

And I'm just concerned about us making you know important decisions that impact on chow from some Peter and chow from some jars

At this sort of time of night when we're all tired. No. No, I completely understand your point council

I think there's also arguments to suggest, you know with the current pressures on planning at the moment

There is a need to determine

applications

And there I can see the merits on both sides

Like I say, I'm very happy to go to a vote if people want to defer to the next session

I'm gonna have to go though because my partner is already you know I'm very

unhappy with me.

Well if you need to go you need to go.

Councilman?

I think from from my point of view having been on the site visit it's it's

a lot more straightforward than perhaps is being.

I think we should crack on because we spend longer debating whether to hold it we

should might as well crack on with it with the item but Councillor Tate if you need to

go please by all means thank you very much for coming.

We're still quarant.

So yes, Kirby, thank you very much for your patience,

and yeah, we'll introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair.

So this application seeks planning permission

Kirby MacInnis - 4:17:06

for the construction of seven dwellings

with associated access, landscaping, and open space.

The officer recommendation is to defer and delegate

the application to the Director of Planning and Environment

to grant planning permission subject to appropriate

conditions set out within the officer report and the completion of a planning

obligation to secure financial contribution towards the Burnham beaches

mitigation strategy. Just a couple of minor updates to the report in paragraph

5 .2 and 5 .7 replace the word clear with strong so it now states provide a clear

development than clear. And similar to the first item, if you can remember the

we've also received a comment from NHS Integrated Care Board requesting

developer contributions. Like the first application discussed on the agenda

because this application is also a minor development we would not normally seek

financial contributions for that matter.

This slide is the location plan for the application site outlined in red, covers

an area of just under 0 .5 hectares. Just to give some locational context, the site

again in aerial view, it comprises mainly vacant grassland. To the south of the

site, existing residential development along Pine Tree

Close and to the north, an existing single dwelling.

And it's access to the east side of Narkot Lane.

Also, you can see a portion of it on this slide.

Just to the very south, to the bottom,

is at Chalfont Community College.

Here we have some site photos.

The first is the proposed access

from the opposite side of Narkot Lane.

You can't actually see the access.

It's along the fence area.

But roughly, roughly it's just about here.

And the second photo, it's looking east across the site.

Just some more photos for context.

The top photo is the properties, existing residential properties along Pine Tree Close

that abut the site on the southern boundary.

and then the hedgerows and trees on the northwestern side boundary.

Apologies, I think it might be frozen.

Strange.

It might be because of the Wi -Fi.

Sorry, Chairman. We're just having some technical difficulties.

The presentation seems to have got stuck.

It may be that the Wi -Fi went down just a few minutes ago,

and it may have caused a glitch.

So just give me one minute.

Cllr David Moore - 4:21:22

the technical glitch. We'll go straight to the speakers and then if we can get it back

officers will revert later on. So there are thank you for the report so far. There are

four public speakers on this item and like before questions will be asked at the end.

So we first have Councillor Karen Dixon.

You have three minutes, you may start when ready.

Thank you.

I'm addressing you this evening as the ward councillor

for Chalfont St Peter and wish to address you

specifically please on the existing traffic

and safety issues we currently experience

at the entrance to this pine tree closed development,

which lies within 100 metres of the largest

secondary school in Buckinghamshire.

Chalfont Community College has 1 ,600 pupils

and roughly 200 staff.

It is attended by both local students and others from further afield like Ivar and Denham.

Consequently its pupils arrive each day by foot, bicycle, in taxis and on large double -decker

busses.

The majority of these vehicles, along with a multitude of pedestrians, all coalesce then

in the school's single lay -by or turning circle at the very point where this proposed development

in the country joins the already busy Narkot Lane.

Each school day, the turning circle is chaotic.

Three lines of traffic going around the turning circle gridlocked in both directions.

Long queues forming on surrounding approach roads, double -decker busses turning and parents

stopping wherever they can, while students weave in and out of the moving traffic on

foot.

Everyone is aware of how dangerous this situation is.

and while the school itself, Thames Valley Police, residents of Pantry Close and Tumnus End

and our parish council have tried to find ways of easing the significant road safety concerns at this bottleneck pinch point,

it has not been possible to solve this extreme congestion reality.

And the traffic malaise at this already congested point is a significant key constraint to this development

and would have been obvious in any road safety audit.

Unfortunately, the road safety audit completed for this proposal was carried out between

11 .30 and midday, well away from rush hour.

The school safety audit fails to take any school rush hour traffic into consideration

and is a major omission.

It completely fails to even mention the close proximity of the school, which is of key relevance

to transport sustainability.

Similarly, the highway assessment appears to also not mention school traffic at all.

Paragraph 115 of the national planning policy framework mandates that in assessing sites

for specific planning applications, local planning authorities must ensure prioritised

safe and suitable access.

And I believe this lack of safe suitable access is a major flaw in this application.

because of specifically where the site is situated its access will place our

school pupils in danger. Our Chalfont Community College and her

pupil seems to be being ignored by this application as if they don't exist and

share this very same space. It strikes me as a dangerous oversight that I would

like to see remedied before any application is granted. Thank you very

much. We now move to our next speaker Councillor Chris Vledar of Chalfont

St. Peter Parish Council, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me

to address the committee,

and thank you all for your stamina as well.

I'm speaking today to urge you to refuse this application.

I'd like to make four points.

Firstly, the old Job site lies

within the Metropolitan Greenbelt,

and whilst the officer's report focuses heavily

on housing supply targets, the immediate severe local harms

of this development heavily outweigh its limited benefits.

The applicant has not demonstrated very special circumstances and this is a

clear case of inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. Secondly the minded to

approve decision relies on wholly subjective application of policy. The

officer is asking you to strip this site of its Greenbelt protection by using an

emerging draught 2026 assessment to label it as Greybelt. This is procedurally

premature as the emerging local plan has not been tested by public consultation

and the Butts Council have also stated that the government imposed housing

numbers can be fully met without the release of Greenbelt land. The Paris

Council contends that this site makes a strong contribution to Greenbelt policy

part A and part B. It is open previously undeveloped land and developing it will

significantly erode the strategic gap that prevents the permanent coalescence

of Chavins and Peter and Chavins and Giles. This development if approved would

allow the unchecked urban sprawl of Chavon St Peter and therefore destroy

one of the core purposes of greenbelt policy. Thirdly the highway assessment

completely ignores the localised high -risk reality of Narcot Lane.

Chavon's Community College with over 1 ,600 pupils sits immediately to the

south. Site access is adjacent to a high -use pedestrian crossing and the

pine tree closed turning circle which is used daily by school busses and cars.

During the morning drop -off and afternoon pick -up windows, this road is a highly congested bottleneck,

introducing a new residential junction and this drop -off zone will force vehicles to turn across

lines of gridlock traffic and heavy pedestrian footfall and will create an unacceptable hazard

for thousands of vulnerable children. This represents a severe direct breach of paragraph 115

of the MPPF and renders the access unsustainable. Lastly, we have a critical infrastructure deficit

Adding more homes into our overloaded

failing wastewater system increases the very real risk

of raw sewage backing up into local properties

and a repeat of the closure of our village centre

for nearly five months.

It also risks triggering further emergency discharges

into the River Misborne, a globally rare

protected chalk stream.

The network cannot cope and the necessary infrastructure

is not in place and cannot be conditioned away.

It is therefore unsustainable.

Chairman, these seven houses will not solve

the county's housing supply but they will permanently destroy this vital

greenbelt site, compromise the safety of our school children and threaten our

local environment. I urge a committee to reject the officers recommendations and

refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now move to John Duncan

Public Speaker - 4:28:48

who is an objector. You have three minutes. You may start when ready. I speak on behalf of

the residents of Charnford St Peter. In brief there are very strong grounds for

the objection to this proposal. Firstly, the site is Virgin Greenbelt. There are no buildings

on it, there have never been buildings on it. In the past it was an orchard, currently

it's grassland. The border of the Metropolitan Greenbelt runs along the southern border of

the field of the proposed development, adjoining Pinesview Close that was created in the 1960s.

The site is contiguous with open farmland. There is a single isolated house to the north -west,

otherwise it's contiguous with open farmland or windmill farm, thus the contention that the surrounding area is not of residential nature is incorrect.

This meets none of the criteria for grey belt land.

The purpose of the green belt, if I need tell you, is to cheque the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas.

If this application was approved, there would be one more step in the creeping urbanisation

of Narcot Lane and the coalescence of Chalfont St Peter with Chalfont St Giles.

The proposed development does not fall within any of the exceptions to inappropriate development

set out in section 13 of the NPPF, nor does it meet the relevant criteria for approval.

Secondly, the proposed development is not sustainable with regard to access.

As you've heard, the proposed access is into the turning circle off Narcot Lane.

Crucially, the planned development is adjacent to the Chalfont Community College, which has currently 1 ,600 students and 200 staff.

In consequence, particularly at the start and the end of the school day, there is intense congestion caused by busses and cars dropping off students and waiting to collect them.

This blocks the roads, including the new access point.

Students mill about on foot and bicycle, crossing the road between cars and coaches and using the zebra crossing.

Already a dangerous situation.

The proposed entrance to the development is just 14 metres from the zebra crossing across Narcot Lane.

The highway assessment was woefully lacking and in our view verging on negligent,

with a road safety audit being carried out at 11 .30am when students are all in the college.

Further traffic congestion in this area will increase the risk of injury and worse to pedestrians

and cyclists. This will not be mitigated by constructing a footpath along the edge of

the turning circle. Thirdly, there is no demonstrable need as outlined in NPPF Power 155 for three

points in mind we urge the committee to refuse this application thank you very

much and we finally moved to Martin Avery who's the agent you have three

Speaker - 4:31:42

minutes you may start when ready thank you I'm the land director at Chartwell

the site as the presentation showed is flanked by residential housing both the

north and south sides and will benefit from the public footpath to the eastern

boundary creating good pedestrian links. I would like to reiterate that

Buckinghamshire's own draught green belt assessment in February 2026 had the land

designated as assessment area CPG 23 as zoned as grey belt and it therefore does

not make a strong contribution to the grey belt which is a material

consideration. The scheme offers a good mix of housing with two three and four

bed units and to ensure the character of the area is respected we have followed

the pattern of the neighbouring cul -de -sac pine tree close to the south. In relation

to garden distances it's considered the proposed garden sizes and width and

depths are similar to those within the immediate vicinity and therefore within

keeping the local character. There's a 15 metre garden length guidance but it is

guidance and not absolute rule. Policy is more about fitting the surrounding area

in the appropriate garden to the size of dwelling. Our plots are very similar to

the numbers to all the way through to eight pine tree close in relation to

plot size gardens etc and therefore in keeping with a local setting in relation

to highways which I've just said is quite a key item we have undertaken a

pre -app prior to the submission a real positive I think with this application

is that we will be introducing a new pavement currently school children

cross the zebra crossing that that everyone's referred to and then actually

we have to navigate on the road,

whereas actually part of our application

prior to I think work's even starting,

we will actually be putting in a pavement

that will link the zebra crossing to Pinewood Close,

which is right next to the school community area.

In relation to other highway items,

the scheme offers good visibility

for cars entering and exiting the site

and offers the appropriate level of off -street parking.

Highways confirmed, no objection.

And just to add to it, we've literally just finished

a development of 14 units next to a school and I'm open to the suggestion

maybe for delivery times it'll be covered within the construction

logistics plan but we can limit our delivery times to avoid any clashing

with school drop -off and pick pick up. Drainage all surface water will be

managed on site through infiltration through with no surface water discharge

leaving the site the Suds strategy will use permeable paving Suds planters below

ground crated infiltration tank with an emergency exceedance storage area the

LFA has no objection in relation to trees and ecology and B &G just quickly

there's over 50 trees on site we're looking to keep all of them with the

exception of three that got ash dieback and category you trees and we're looking

to plant an excess of 50 new trees as part of our scheme and enhancing the

ecology area with the use of bat boxes bird boxes and hedgehog highway off -site

next to the houses will be improving fast. Thank you very much.

Cllr David Moore - 4:34:47

Does anyone have any questions to any of the speakers you have heard today?

Okay thank you very much. Before we move to questions of the officers, would you like

to finish your report now the tape's working? Thank you.

Kirby MacInnis - 4:35:02

So just to, this is the proposed site plan.

So seven dwellings in total, five which are detached,

and then a pair of semi -detached.

Just some indicative drawings of the site

to get an idea of its appearance.

The top image would be at the entrance,

looking towards plots six and seven,

which is the pair of semi -detached dwellings.

And the bottom is from the perspective of

plots six and seven, looking towards plots one through five.

And I've also included some elevation plans

of the dwellings as well, if needed.

So as alluded to already, the site is located

within the Greenbelt where new development would typically not be

considered appropriate. However in this case it's considered the proposal would

not constitute inappropriate development within the Greenbelt by virtue of

meeting the exceptions for development under paragraph 155 of the NPBF.

Additionally the proposals would not have an adverse impact on the character

and appearance of the area nor the amenities of neighbouring properties and

further it would not lead to any adverse impacts in terms of highways our

highways officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions

and also no adverse impacts in terms of flooding ecological or landscape matters

thank you very much and we'll move to questions for the officers Councillor

Cllr David Moore - 4:36:54

Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:36:57

A recurring topic that we'll return to here.

In your assessment for this you were relying on this site being assessed as grey belt.

So just for the record could you just clarify and walk us through the key points of that

assessment?

Sure.

Kirby MacInnis - 4:37:18

The starting point was a document referenced a few times this evening is the 2026 draught green belt assessment.

So in looking at the assessment area that includes the parcel that is this site,

the assessment area was assessed as not having a strong contribution to purposes A, B or D

and concluded not grey belt.

So looking at it on a smaller scale in terms of this site,

we've also reached the same conclusions

that it would not strongly contribute to purposes A, B, or D.

There is more, I can direct you to more detail

in the report that speaks on that.

It would be in the principal section at paragraphs.

specifically page 152 of the packet,

and beginning at 4 .8.

In particular with this site,

Mr Ben Robinson - 4:38:33

as those who visited the site would have seen,

it's immediately adjacent residential development

on both sides, so whilst it isn't a,

a Greenbelt site, it is clearly Greybelt.

It wouldn't strongly perform on any of the relevant purposes

as a site or as part of the larger assessment area

that was identified in the Greenbelt assessment.

So on that basis, as Kirby sets out,

the proposal would meet paragraph 155 at the MPPF

and would not be in appropriate development

in the Greenbelt.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:39:11

So particularly, perhaps it's particularly the,

because it's bordered on both sides.

I mean that's part of the assessment.

That's a key to it.

But I mean, I suppose the larger area isn't bordered

and that was considered to not be strongly performing.

But when, if you were to even putting aside

the Greenbelt assessment, if you were looking at this

as an individual site, it's quite clearly

not performing strongly and so with those in terms of those purposes and

there's no national landscape no and it's not adjacent okay immediately

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:39:59

adjacent to historic conservation Councillor waters yeah I'm gonna ask some

questions to do with the detail and know the applicant mentioned about the garden

lengths and it's basically just a guidance. It's part of the Chiltern

district local plan and has been sustained for a long time and normally

the only sort of exceptions are if you were in an area let's say of terraced

houses in the middle of a town and they have very small backyards that would be

acceptable to not go for 15 metres. If your garden is, or the proposed garden is

adjacent to open fields, that is another intersection that was there, which

doesn't actually work here, or that the width and general space that comes, it's

the depth that is providing the amount of space and also comparing with the character

of the surrounding area, particularly the pine tree clothes.

Here they're quite significant though some of the design looks a bit similar, they're

significantly smaller houses which are going into this estate and the gardens are significantly

smaller. When we're talking about there's like a 10 .3, there's an 11, there's quite

a few here, there's a 7 .5. They're not great and they're not even getting near to the policy.

So normally the thing is guidance, is to say, yeah, within reason you can be down a metre

or so maybe, but not normally that amount. And also when you look at the other gardens,

they are significantly different. Any of those that might have been shorter, remember they

would have been backing onto open land, so actually wouldn't necessarily have been caught

with the 15 metres, even if they'd been built at a time when that was in. So they're in

a slightly different set up here, you're filling in that gap, so you haven't got that. And

so I'd like to know a little bit more about your assessment of why you consider this to

be acceptable.

If I just start with the policy and then I'll hand over to Kirby in terms of the detail

and the precise measurements of the surrounding development and the proposed.

In terms of the policy H12, that's part of the Chiltern District Local Plan which is

now 29 years old.

Since then the national policy framework has changed significantly.

Essentially, in terms of the weight you would give to that policy, you would have to give

Mr Ben Robinson - 4:42:51

weight to it in accordance with its consistency with the MPPF.

Now the MPPF doesn't ascribe specific standards to regarding depths or the size of amenity

areas specifically, so in that respect the policy wouldn't be consistent with the MPPF

and therefore that means that the weight you can give the policy is limited.

Not withstanding that as officers we we do regard that the

Proposal does meet the policy. It sets out in the reports. I have had a look at the policy again. Just just just

To see what it actually says say it does say that general standard

Expected will be a minimum. We are going that for 15 metres except in the following situations

So there's there's a few situations that are relevant ones are the ones referenced in the report, which is B

which says that where average garden lamps

in the vicinity of the development

are significantly less than 15 metres,

the garden lamps of the proposed houses or bungalows

should be similar to those in the surrounding area.

Now in the report we've set out our reasons

why we consider that meeting that,

but there's also C as well,

which says in cases where adequate private amenity space

exists within the application site,

or where the rear boundary abuts a public ride -alway

or footpath, an open field, open countryside, a recreation ground or playing field, a reduced

garden depth may be acceptable. So in this case the site does abut a public footpath

and behind there are fields and open countryside. So in our opinion UD would be caught under

B, with regards to the average garden lengths,

and Kirby can enlighten you on the specifics on that

in a minute, but also on C, because the site does about

a public ride away, sorry, a footpath,

and is adjoining open countryside.

So on that basis, it does meet with the policy

and allows for a degree of flexibility,

Not withstanding that the policy itself is is very old and would only carry limited weight

Kirby MacInnis - 4:45:10

I'll pass over to Kobe and she can explain the specifics in terms of the actual measurements

Yeah, I'm just having a look at this and and the officers assessment it it refers to the

exception under H12 be that allows flexibility if other properties in the area are

of similar rear garden lengths.

So it's mostly on the north side of Pine Tree Close,

those existing dwellings that have reduced garden lengths.

It ranges from a minimum of six metres,

and that's at number one Pine Tree Close,

to varying other 10, 13 metres.

So there's about 50 % of the properties on Pine Tree Close

that are not meeting the 15 metre minimum guidance

that's established by age 12.

But given that there are 50 % of the existing properties

already not meeting that minimum depth for veer gardens,

we consider that it does comply with H12.

Thank you.

I was just gonna come in there on highways

because one of the speakers mentioned

Cllr David Moore - 4:46:35

that it was assessed at 1130 after the commuting times

to the community college.

Did the modelling take into account those movements?

And what also occurred to me on the site

was it was obviously the parking.

You know very limited parking and the lack of that pavement connecting

Just good to clarify

Mr Ben Robinson - 4:46:59

So the highway authority have looked at the scheme

Obviously, I'm not a highway expert so I can't attest to

specific technical matters on highways

however, the highway authority looked at they've considered it in terms of the

standards for

access and the arrangements as to whether or not it would impact on

Highway safety they've concluded that the proposal wouldn't have a detrimental impact on highway safety

they were aware they would have been aware in making that assessment of the situation of the site in relation to the

Majorning Community College and

They've not found any reason to

object to the development

It's also, as mentioned, the access currently

from the zebra crossing to the community college.

That is currently without a footway,

and as part of this application,

there is a highway condition requiring highway improvement,

which will link the zebra crossing

to the wider footway network,

which is of a benefit in terms of pedestrians

the of travelling in that direction

any other questions before we move to the debate yes cancer

Cllr Matthew Hind - 4:48:24

any details or any any accidents that have happened from people living on

pinewood clothes pine tree clothes so you know that's 50 % more houses there

than planned here, you know, if there is an issue

with cars coming backwards and forwards,

I mean that Pine Tree Close is closer

to the Community College than this planned development.

Have there been any issues we know of?

I am not aware of any, but the Highway Authority,

when they would be looking at the application,

Mr Ben Robinson - 4:49:02

they would look at potential, they would look at

whether there's been accidents of that nature.

So there is no - We walk in the bases,

we haven't heard anything from them therefore it definitely well I have no

evidence in front of me and neither do you as decision -makers to suggest that

there has been accidents which that would be material to the assessment of

the application thank you councillor Matthews thank you one of the points

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 4:49:31

made by the parish council I think was about the neighbourhood plan and the mix

of housing that's on this development which doesn't comply with one of the

policies in the neighbourhood plan so can you tell me why that hasn't been taken

into account yes the original submission the mix of houses it didn't initially

comply with the neighbourhood plan policy which for the size of this scheme would

Kirby MacInnis - 4:50:01

require one two -bedroom dwelling the application was subsequently amended to

include in the pair of semi -detached dwellings one of those is now two

bedroom so we have concluded that it does comply with the that neighbourhood

plan policy.

Cllr David Moore - 4:50:28

Thank you. Well if there are no more questions we'll move to the debates. Does

any member want to share what they think so far? Councillor Roberts. Yeah I think

Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:50:36

we've shaken the barrel on this one and it's the relevant planning

assessment seemed to have been addressed as far as I'm concerned so I've been

minded to support the support the application recommendation. Thank you for

proposal is there a seconder or any other proposal to the contrary second

okay well we unless there's no other points or members all in favour of the

proposal on the table from Councillor Roberts to approve this application and

the officers report all in favour any against any abstentions the items

9 Date of next meeting

Cllr David Moore - 4:51:26

carried. Thank you very much. And we now move to final items which are date of

10 Availability of Members attending Site Visits (if required)

meeting 14th of July at 6 .30 and the site visit visit will be the day before so

hope to see you there as well but thank you for your patience and have a well a

Webcast Finished - 4:51:38

good evening a good sleep as well thank you

Cllr Kirsten Ashman

Conservative

View profile

Ms. Melanie Beech

Principal Planning Officer

Buckinghamshire Council

View profile

Cllr Cole Caesar

Reform UK

View profile

Ms. Teresa Coppock

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Matthew Hind

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Ms. Rachel Marber

View profile

Cllr Wendy Matthews

Conservative

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Mr Charles Power

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Mr Ben Robinson

View profile

Mr Mike Shires

View profile

Cllr Martin Tett

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Larisa Townsend

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.

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Tuesday 16 June 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeTuesday, 16th June 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:00

1 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

Mr Charles Power - 0:02:26

Ms. Rachel Marber - 0:02:33

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:02:54

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:03:01

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:03:05

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:03:09

Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:03:16

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:03:19

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:03:22

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:03:27

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:03:35

Cllr David Moore - 0:03:38

Alice Williams - 0:03:42

Cllr David Moore - 0:03:53

2 Apologies for absence

3 Declarations of interest

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:04:04

4 Minutes of the previous meetings

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:53

Planning Applications

5 PL/20/0860/FA Land at The Rear of Five Acres & Trapps Lane and Pheasant Rise, Trapps Lane, Chesham

Mr Mike Shires - 0:05:28

Cllr David Moore - 0:13:05

Public Speaker - 0:13:34

Cllr David Moore - 0:16:37

Public Speaker - 0:16:45

Cllr David Moore - 0:19:42

Public Speaker - 0:19:49

Cllr David Moore - 0:22:11

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:22:20

Public Speaker - 0:22:43

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:23:37

Public Speaker - 0:24:42

Cllr David Moore - 0:25:39

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:25:42

Public Speaker - 0:26:11

Cllr David Moore - 0:26:33

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:26:38

public speaker - 0:27:46

Cllr David Moore - 0:28:52

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:28:55

Cllr David Moore - 0:29:23

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:29:35

Mr Mike Shires - 0:30:12

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:33:11

Cllr David Moore - 0:33:47

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:34:38

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:37

Cllr David Moore - 0:36:55

Mr Mike Shires - 0:37:21

Cllr David Moore - 0:37:35

public speaker - 0:37:47

Cllr David Moore - 0:38:00

Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:38:16

Mr Mike Shires - 0:38:24

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:39:33

Mr Mike Shires - 0:40:01

Cllr Kirsten Ashman - 0:41:40

Mr Mike Shires - 0:41:54

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:42:22

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:42:29

Mr Mike Shires - 0:42:50

Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:43:32

Mr Mike Shires - 0:43:43

Cllr David Moore - 0:44:07

Cllr Wendy Matthews - 0:44:14

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 16th June 2026 at 6:30pm