West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 1 July 2026, 6:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 1st July 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Leslie Ashton
  2. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  3. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  4. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Arman Alam
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Helen Braine
  2. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  3. Cllr Lesley Clarke OBE
  4. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  5. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  6. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  7. Mr Matthew Hardy
  8. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  9. Mr Matthew Hardy
  10. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  11. Mr Matthew Hardy
  12. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  13. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  14. Mr Matthew Hardy
  15. Cllr Clive Harriss
  16. Mr Matthew Hardy
  17. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  18. Mr Matthew Hardy
  19. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  20. Cllr Shade Adoh
  21. Helen Braine
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  23. Ray Martin
  24. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  25. Ray Martin
  26. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  27. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  28. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  29. Mr Matthew Hardy
  30. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  31. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  32. Mr Matthew Hardy
  33. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  34. Cllr Frances Kneller
  35. Mr Matthew Hardy
  36. Cllr Clive Harriss
  37. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  38. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  39. Mr Matthew Hardy
  40. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  41. Mr Matthew Hardy
  42. Ray Martin
  43. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  44. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  45. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  46. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  47. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  48. Cllr Frances Kneller
  49. Helen Braine
  50. Mr Matthew Hardy
  51. Cllr Frances Kneller
  52. Mr Matthew Hardy
  53. Cllr Shade Adoh
  54. Mr Matthew Hardy
  55. Ray Martin
  56. Mr Matthew Hardy
  57. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  58. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  59. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  60. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  61. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  62. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  63. Cllr Maz Hussain
  64. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  65. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  66. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  67. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  68. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  69. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  70. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  71. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  2. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  3. Cllr Arman Alam
  4. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
  1. Helen Braine
  2. Jenny Ion
  3. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  4. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  5. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  6. Cllr Carol Heap
  7. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  8. Public Speaker
  9. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  10. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  11. Public Speaker
  12. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  13. Public Speaker
  14. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  15. Public Speaker
  16. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  17. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  18. Public Speaker
  19. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  20. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  21. Jenny Ion
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  23. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  24. Cllr Frances Kneller
  25. Jenny Ion
  26. Cllr Frances Kneller
  27. Jenny Ion
  28. Cllr Frances Kneller
  29. Jenny Ion
  30. Cllr Frances Kneller
  31. Jenny Ion
  32. Ray Martin
  33. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  34. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  35. Jenny Ion
  36. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  37. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  38. Jenny Ion
  39. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  40. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  41. Jenny Ion
  42. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  43. Jenny Ion
  44. Mr Matthew Hardy
  45. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  46. Cllr Shade Adoh
  47. Jenny Ion
  48. Cllr Shade Adoh
  49. Jenny Ion
  50. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  51. Ray Martin
  52. Mr Matthew Hardy
  53. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  54. Mr Matthew Hardy
  55. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  56. Cllr Clive Harriss
  57. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  58. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  59. Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
  60. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  61. Cllr Shade Adoh
  62. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  63. Jenny Ion
  64. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  65. Cllr Shade Adoh
  66. Jenny Ion
  67. Cllr Shade Adoh
  68. Jenny Ion
  69. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  70. Jenny Ion
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  73. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  74. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  75. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  76. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  77. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  78. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  79. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  80. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  81. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  82. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  83. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
  3. Webcast Finished

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:00
Ladies and gentlemen and welcome to West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee.
I have a couple of housekeeping items for information.
This meeting is webcast and by entering the room you have consented to be filmed.
However, if members of the public do not wish to have their images captured,
please advise the committee clerk and we will help to seat you in a place which will not be filmed.
The fire exits are located at the back of the chamber. Please follow me when we congue outside
over the bridge to the left of the council building. Item one apologies.

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:00:51
Thank you chairman we've received apologies from councillors Ayub, Fiers and Turner.
Councillor Nella is kindly substituting for Councillor Fiers and Councillor
Townsend is kindly substituting for Councillor Turner.
Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:01
I object to item 2, appointment of Vice -Chairman.
I announce that Councillor...
Just so, in terms of apologies for absence, just so you're aware,
I know you were cutting it fine, Chairman, but I know that Councillor O 'Dellio
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:01:14
is struggling with the traffic in terms of apologies for absence,
so she's running late but she will be with us, but I'll see to it later on in the meeting.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:21
Agenda item two, appointment of vice chairman.

2 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

I announce that Councillor Mazumri -Lazane
is my vice chairman for the planning meeting.
Agenda item three, are there any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Armand.
Chairman, first of all, it's good to see you
feeling better.
Cllr Arman Alam - 0:02:11
Thank you.
Welcome.
I've got to declare an interest in the first agenda item.
I called in that application,
but I have an open view in respect of it
and I'm going to be listening to all the members' views
in respect of it.
Thank you.
Councillor Collingwood.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:29
Thanks, Chairman.
Likewise, good to see you here.
Good to see you back.
I'm fully well.
Likewise, for item two,
I also called the application in as a local member,
but also in addition,
I sit as a Marlborough and Boston parish councillor,
but made clear that I didn't participate
with their planning meetings on this.
So you've got two other parish councillors
talking to you this evening.
But I again kept an open mind
and did not participate in any of the debates.
Just wanted to listen to the reports
and then give our feedback accordingly.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:03:03
Thank you for your kind words, councillors.
I'm still the same, I haven't changed.
Agenda item four minutes of the previous meeting

4 Minutes of the Last Meeting

held on the 10th of June. Are we all happy with the minutes? Thank you.

Planning Applications

Now we move on to the application agenda item 5 application number PL stroke 24

5 24/08021/OUT - 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe HP11 1QL

stroke 0 8 2 1 strokes 0 UT 22 Marlow Hill High Wycombe. Please note that the
item was deferred from the March meeting of this committee. Whilst members of the
the committee can participate in the debate on this item.
Only the following Councillors who are present
at the meeting in March are able to take part in the vote
as they will have been present for the previous item
for the entire consideration.
These members are myself and Councillor Allyn,
Councillor Hussain, Councillor Nello,
Councillor Townsend and Councillor West.
I'd like to hand over to Helen Brain
who to introduce this item.
Helen Braine - 0:04:17
Thank you chair.
This application relates to 22 Marlowe Hill in High Wickham.
It is an outline application for the demolition
of the existing dwelling and the erection of 19 apartments
with landscaping as a reserved matter.
The site is located within the High Wickham settlement area
but lies outside the Wickham Abbey conservation area.
Members will recall that the application was previously considered by the Planning Committee on 18th of March 2026.
The committee resolved to defer the determination of the application to allow
officers to provide further information on three specific matters.
One, the highway's officers consultation response particularly in relation to parking provision
and how the 82 bedroom care home informed the highway authorities conclusions.
two, an executive summary of the viability appraisal, and three, further
evidence from the NHS, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated
Care Board to support its request for financial contribution to primary
healthcare facilities. These matters have now been addressed and are set out in
detail within the committee report. Aside from these matters, there have been no
significant amendments to the proposed development and the application remains
materially unchanged from that previously presented to committee.
Members will recall that in terms of the history an 82 bed care home covering
this site and adjoining properties was originally refused but subsequently
allowed at appeal in March 2023. This appeal decision is a material
consideration as it established that significant redevelopment along this
stretch of Marlowe Hill could be acceptable in principle. This slide shows
the approved site plan for the care home which included the demolition of
properties 16 to 22 Marlowe Hill.
This slide shows members the front elevation of the consented care home.
This image shows the rear elevation of the approved care home.
This slide shows the application site in context. On the left members can see the
existing plot of number 22 which is a large site with a tiered rear garden and
two existing access points from Mallow Hill. The land rises steeply to the rear.
On the right, the proposed site plan shows the new apartment building would be positioned
broadly in line with the established building line along Marlowe Hill.
The proposed apartment building incorporates a basement car park, shown here, which will
provide 19 car parking spaces together with cycle and bin storage.
Above the basement, the ground floor will accommodate five apartments with access to
community amenities, communal amenity space.
This slide displays the first, second,
and third floor plans which accommodate
the remaining apartments.
In total, there are nine one bedroom apartments
and 10 two bedroom apartments proposed.
All units comply with the nationally
described space standards.
These are the first set of proposed elevations. The top elevation is the north -east side elevation,
which will be visible to the neighbouring property at number 20 Marlowe Hill. The bottom
elevation shows the rear of the proposed building. Members can see that the building
comprises four storeys above the basement.
The top elevation here is the side elevation visible from Wordsworth Road and the adjacent
green space.
The bottom elevation shows the front elevation which will face onto Marlowe Hill.
This slide shows an indicative 3D view of how the proposed apartment building would
appear from Marlowe Hill.
Sorry, correction.
The top elevation here is the side elevation visible from Wordsworth Road and the adjacent green space.
The bottom elevation shows members the front elevation which will face Marlowe Hill.
The materials proposed are going to be grey, black, multi -brick pallet with black framed windows.
We now move on to the site photographs.
This is the first of the two existing access points serving the site. This is
the second access point. The proposal intends to reuse both accesses to create
an in -and -out arrangement. This slide shows members the existing dwelling at
number 22 Marlowe Hill which will be demolished to facilitate the development.
Here we can see number 22 on the left in red brick and the neighbouring property
number 20 Marlowe Hill to the right in white render. Number 20 which is the
neighbour sits on slightly higher ground than the existing application site.
Moving around to the side of the property this slide shows the part of
the rear garden and the steep rise into topography towards the back of the site.
This slide shows members the rear elevation of the existing property taken
from within the terraced rear garden.
Standing in the middle of the rear garden, this slide shows members the view
looking towards the rear boundary of the plot. And finally this photograph
captures the full rear elevation of the existing dwelling. To conclude, the
recommendation to committee is set out in section 7, page 20 of the agenda pack.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you. As the public speaking took place at the March meeting,
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:11:20
the Constitution does not permit any further public speaking. However, I am
using my discretion as chairman to allow the ward member, Councillor Leslie Clark, to speak
to the points on which the item was deferred. Councillor Leslie Clark, you have three minutes
to speak. Thank you, chairman, and thank you for allowing
Cllr Lesley Clarke OBE - 0:11:44
me to speak on this item. My concern on this application dated 2024 refers to the parking.
In Paris 4 .15 to 4 .25 on pages 11, 12 and 13 of the report, the buck's parking strategy
at the time of this application was enforced. And it states 25 parking spaces which should
be on site, not the 19 as we are now told by the buck's parking guidance of September
25. A lot of information refers throughout the report of the former
application of the care home which covered the five residential plots here
not the one as we are looking at. A lot of inference to parking also alludes to
the care home. The application and we saw a picture resembles a liquorice
and is totally out of keeping with the street scene.
Can officers confirm that this application was taken to, that the care home was taken
to the inspector and it was refused on grounds to begin with?
If agreed, this application, the overspill from parking from this one site will overwhelm
local roads and set the precedent for the further four sites to be flattered
developments with insufficient parking provision as this application has. There
is no sill or section 106 due to the viability put forward by the applicant.
No allocated parking for disabled people or EV charging. Could the officers
please comment on these two aspects of the unallocated parking provision as
offered on site and where would the carbon credits that has been offered be
used. Merely parking issues alone should result in refusal of this application.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:13:54
Thank You chairman. Thank you Councillor Clark. Are there any questions for Councillor Clark
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:14:03
from committee members? Councillor Collingwood. So just to clarify about the
parking piece. Are we saying we've lowered our standards then?
Because I've read the report and what cancer Clark has just said,
it appeared originally under the, when the original application was submitted,
we had a one set of parking standards that says you had to have 25 yet for
whatever reason, we now look at a different set of standards,
but surely we have to use the,
the set of standards that applied at the time the application was submitted,
not what it is today.
because we've always been told that.
So just, I just want to clarify,
I think is that the point you're making, Councillor Clark?
That it was,
say if it was A back in 2024,
we're now looking at it,
except for instructions B,
but actually, and we've always been told as chairman,
so just want clarification from the officers as well.
We were told you go by whatever the set of rules were
at the time the application submitted.
Why there's a saying, oh, it's okay.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:15:07
Councillor Collingwood, it was questions for Councillor Clark, but I can take
if there's no questions for Councillor Clark, I can open it for technical questions to the officers.
and would, Mr. Brown, would you like to answer that?
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:15:30
Yeah, the parking standards used to determine
the provision for the current application
and the care home were one and the same,
which is the Bookington Countywide parking guidance.
I believe confusion may be the fact
that the parking standards on the website refer to the vault standards
that are used in the north of the county.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:16:01
Councillor Townsend. Hi just following up on that I think and this was one of the
points that I raised when this first came to committee I think the 25 spaces
is actually when you calculate it you calculate the parking based on bedrooms
as opposed to habitable rooms.
And that's what throws up the discrepancy.
And the question that we raised at the previous committee
was, well, why?
Why are we using habitable rooms?
And I think one of the officers said it's custom
and practise, but we wanted to hear from the highways
officer as to why it's custom,
because the parking guidance clearly gives both options
to be used, habitable rooms or bedrooms.
So I think we probably need a bit a bit of light shed on that if possible, please
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:16:51
That's correct the guidance does refer to bedrooms and habitable rooms
And the bedrooms were used as a segue
When the guidance was first brought in its policy in I think September 2015
into habitable rooms
habitable rooms
were chosen as the best metric
for determining parking provision
because they're more empirically based
in terms of that they are linked to the census
in terms of car ownership journeys to work and such.
And hence, it also takes into account
and obviously this is with houses rather than flats,
but it takes into account, this is habitable rooms,
rooms such as studies that could be converted to bedrooms
post permission under permitted development.
So therefore using habitable rooms at the beginning
takes that into account and theoretically gives
a better parking provision for the development at hand.
If I may just come back on that.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:17:59
The publicly, I understand what you're saying
about how you've moved to using the habitable rooms
to do the calculations, but the publicly available guidance
that's on the website, that is what the public see,
what we as councillors see,
merely gives habitable rooms or bedrooms.
And it doesn't say these calculations
are based on habitable rooms, it gives both options.
And I think there's a serious point there
on what sort of interpretation we as councillors
are supposed to be applying.
The guidance as it stands gives both as an option.
habitable rooms concludes a more favourable outcome because often
developments have to produce less parking. Bedrooms is obviously gives a
higher standard in this situation.
When can when is there an option is there a time when it's more appropriate
to use bedrooms and if so what guidance can we have on that?
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:19:05
Well, as I mentioned, it came through very quickly when the guidance was brought in nearly
11 years ago with the fact that habitable rooms was more a robust metric and it was
more defendable on appeal.
And so therefore, in order to create a more stable basis in which we can determine parking
provision, it was better to...
rooms had more legs on it in terms of it being defendable and therefore rather than switching
between the two, it was decided to stick to the habitable rooms rather than bedrooms.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:19:52
As at the beginning of the meeting, as I said, only councillors in the previous meeting in
March can speak on this no sorry sorry no no vote is open to
okay sorry yeah you can speak but you cannot have been advised so Councillor
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:20:20
Arthur Hewitt thank you I would say that if it's on the website saying either or
we should take it as either or
because we haven't seen anything that actually commands
that it has to be done the way it's suggested here.
My other concern, so I think there is some sort of doubt
there as to whether we have to on the basis of the report.
Also, reading this, I agree with the Councillor Ford,
Councillor Clark, I've read the application
and there is so much reference to the care home in there
and the appeal, and I think in this case,
the entrance and exit has materially changed
between applications, but highways aren't prepared
to comment because of the appeal
on the previous application when it was a different setup.
I think, from my perspective, keeping an open mind,
I think we should be looking at this
as a fresh application entirely,
so that we can see clearly what the details are
for this specific one and allow highways
to comment freely with.
Councillor, have you got a question?
Yes.
Is it acceptable to Council that highways
are impeded from talking on appeal
that refers to an entirely different setup
in terms of access, because they had severe safety concerns
and that is a material issue with the change?
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:21:47
I think what I would say is that we haven't necessarily been impeded from
discussing it. The issue with the care home subsequent application, the previous
pre -app and the appeal, all of which we objected to and tried to
on appeal unsuccessfully was the principles of intensifying the vehicle
well vehicle movements on that section of Marlowe Hill. Obviously when it went to
appeal and it was allowed the inspector in their summary of the proposals and
highways position didn't accept our position that the intensification of
vehicle movements on that section of Marlow Hill
was an issue in principle.
Therefore precedent had been set.
In terms of vehicular intensification of the
care home that was allowed on appeal
and comparing it with the current proposals,
I did cheque and the current proposals would generate
roughly just over half of the movements
that the care home would.
So therefore, the appeal was looking at a greater amount of movements than the flats
would.
In terms of the access itself, it mirrors to a reasonable degree that which was developed
for the care home application in terms of the separation of the access and egress point.
and if memory serves, there is an island between them
to facilitate pedestrian movements.
And it does generally accord with our standards.
So the access itself is acceptable.
All the difference between this application and the last
is that a precedent had been set
by the vehicle intensification of this area.
And essentially, this will generate just, as I say,
just over half so there were no grounds on which we could lodge an objection
based on the access itself.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:24:07
Councillor Harris. Thank you very much Chairman. Just trying to clarify because
this is going to get very confusing for me because there's still more than one of
these planning committees and in in the guidance it says county wide parking
guidance we're now being advised by the officer here that in the north they
apply different guidance to the south,
yet we're trying to bring the whole thing under one umbrella
to ensure that everything is similar.
And then similarly, I've just passed an application
for a care home, and it was accepted the care home movements
are very, very small because people tend to go to a care
home, and sadly they come out,
they don't come out in a car anyway.
So the thing is that the amount of movement,
so it all seems a little confusing to me,
I just wonder what we're meant to apply.
I feel very confused.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:25:05
Yes, the Book of Countywide guidance, as I say,
was when it was subject to public consultation
and was adopted as policy in the autumn of 2015.
Obviously, this was pre -unitary
and it was envisaged by the County Council at the time
that it would be deployed throughout the Wickham District,
Chiltern South, Bucks and Aylesbury Vale.
At the time, Wickham District Council
were the only planning authority that adopted it
as a material consideration of the process.
Whereas Chiltern South, Bucks and Aylesbury Vale
decided to keep their own.
When we went new in a tree, Chiltern South, Bucks area,
then we're using the Bookhamshire County wide parking guidance as well as the
Wickham district but with the publication of the Valpin I think it was
2022 they decided to go along with their own parking standards and hence why we
have a two -tier system what I would say that at the moment we are post
consultation on the next iteration of the parking guidance and it is in
visit that will be used throughout the entire county and hopefully put an end
to issues like this.
Councillor Townsend.
Thank you.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:26:23
The issue raised by Councillor Arthur -Hewitt earlier
was one of the issues that we had at original committee,
which was that we didn't have any detail,
comparable detail between the care home traffic movements
and access issues and those of the current application,
which was why it would have been helpful
to have someone from highways there at the time to address that so I'm really
glad that you have addressed the point about how many vehicle movements and it
being over half because that helps us to understand. On the access point you said
it mirrors the original care home access to a reasonable degree. Now I would have
thought if there are any differences and you had initial concerns about highway
safety in the original application. But there are some differences now. This would be an
opportunity to go against the precedent or distinguish this case from the precedent and
stick to your guns on the original highway's concerns. But perhaps it mirrors it too much.
Can you explain the differences between the access point and why you haven't used it as
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:27:37
to distinguish yes absolutely and throughout the care home process from
pre -app and to just before the appeal the applicant noted that we had issues
with the intensive vehicular intensification of this section of Marlow
So they decided to try and design a standard bellmouth access as much as they could to address our concerns.
However, it was not so much the actual access itself, but the amount of vehicle movements that in terms of the care home would replace the,
I think it was maybe four dwellings
that would have been demolished to accommodate it.
Is it two for this or just one?
And one for this, yeah.
So it was about the deceleration movements
and the turning in of the access itself,
even if the access was built up to our standards.
But as I mentioned, the inspector of the appeal
for the care home site didn't believe
that those deceleration and turning manoeuvres
were detrimental to traffic behaviour
and potential collisions on Barlow Hill.
So in a way, the access itself is,
well, the access itself is fine and it meets our standards.
The last one did for the care home, this one does.
But it was all a matter of the intensification
of vehicle movements in of itself.
and the access can handle those movements.
It was more of the movements on Marlow Hill itself
rather than the access design.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:29:31
So it was the number of movements that was the problem.
That's correct.
And those being roughly half in this application
is what gets you over that hurdle.
That's correct, yeah.
Councillor Adlai.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 0:29:53
I am glad to see that you are feeling better.
I am just wondering, considering all the other information in here and the differences, are
we are allowed to ask for this to come back
as in look at the application in his new form.
Well, a fresh planning application.
A fresh planning application in his new form.
We have to determine the application before us.
Helen Braine - 0:30:49
We can't ask for the applicant to submit a fresh application to committee.
This is the application that's been presented and we have to determine this application.
Councillor Conlon.
Thank you, chairman.
I think it would have been helpful if the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:05
Iowa office has actually given us a,
the number of trip generations with the care home application
would have been X.
My guess is probably 100 ,000, 200 ,000,
whatever it might be.
I don't know exactly, but whatever that number would be.
And if you're saying it's about half,
but if you actually extrapolate out,
this is a fifth of the actual size of the actual care home
site would be.
Because what I understood from the officers previously was the
care home site was covering the whole of the other four houses.
So five houses, this is only going to take one house, as it were.
Therefore, for one house you're getting 50 % of the whole site.
Extrapolate that out, it gives you 250 % of what the actual care home would generate.
So that is an intensification.
So it would be much, much helpful now and or going forward
if the office gave us proper detailed analysis with physical numbers
So we actually understand square footage versus intensification.
So you actually know what is apples and apples, apples and bananas,
apples and oranges or whatever it's going to be.
But I am not impressed.
To me it's an intensification because you've just told me
one fifth of the site gives you 50 % chip generation.
That gives you 250 % chip generation overall.
Because if you then replicate this over the other four sites,
which clearly that's what's going to happen once this one goes,
you'll then have 250 % chip generation, right?
So that clearly would be a material consideration,
not distorting the access point.
And the only reason I couldn't physically be here last time,
I was stuck in Vietnam, thanks to him.
Thank you.
I'll ask Mr. Ray Martin to answer that.
Ray Martin - 0:32:46
Yeah, I'm not quite sure why you want to extrapolate,
because that's not the application that's in front of you.
You're looking at the vehicle movements associated
with the development.
Can you let me finish, please?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:32:55
Square.
Ray Martin - 0:32:58
We're looking at the vehicle movements associated with this development and you're making an
assumption that there'll be developments following on the other sites.
You can't do that.
We're looking at this proposal.
And I said at the previous meeting, if developments did come in subsequently on other sites, we
then look at the traffic situation with those developments at that time.
So I think what you're accusing the highway is always a bit unfair.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:33:24
But Mr. Martin, to be honest, just saying it's 50 % of the trip generation is not talking about apples and apples.
Because it's a fifth of the physical application aside from the previous application.
So therefore, if you extrapolate per square footage, it's not a 50 % reduction.
Because square footage wise, with how big the original care home application was, was that size.
We're not talking about a fifth of the size, but 50 % of the generation.
So therefore it's not an apple and apple. It's not just straight. Oh, it's 50 % efforts. Okay
Actually, we look at square footage wise actually is not a 50 % generation
That's what I'm pointing out is and that's why I said we better have to have a clear table
Exactly saying square footage trip generation. Then we've had a much more clear way forward of saying. Okay, that's what it looks like
Not impressed I
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:34:17
Think at this point can I ask members
when they have questions come through me please.
And we've been webcast as well.
So I know feelings are running high, but please.
Thank you.
Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.
Thank you.
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:34:35
I mean, it would be helpful to have a direct,
the direct information on the new entry and exit
in terms of how highways perceive it.
It is a route that is the pedestrian equivalent of rush hour because there are schools piling
down that hill and cars will have to break and wait when it's school kick out time and
there are a tonne of kids coming down because while we're looking at this as a near town,
everything's on foot kind of basis, it's not a residential road apart from those few houses
that kind of stick out as anomalies, if you like.
Wonderful beautiful anomalies, but they are for the rest of that road.
and it's a dual carriageway one way,
so people have to go all the way up the hill
to come back down, it increases the people coming down
because anyone who wants to literally
go two yards backwards has to do the whole loop.
To me, I think a really thorough breakdown,
not just sort of we've been through the appeal process,
what is, what is, I'd really like to know
what was addressed about the heavy school
pedestrian traffic the the fact that the report doesn't have the approximations
of number of cars coming in and out the difference of the two entrances is it's
like we're asking questions but it would have been very helpful to see it in the
report and the last thing on that is so that question is what was the heavy
school pedestrian traffic taken into account in your report and the second
question is regarding the parking I think as it's up for grabs which one
and you go forward because we weren't aware
before this meeting what was Council's view on it
out of the two options,
it's not a residential road with off parking.
So like when you've got hardly any parking,
you can't just hump the curb.
So to me, we should be erring on the one
that provides the most spaces
considering there is literally nowhere within 200 metres
because it was in the report that you could put your car.
So I think that the Councillors report saying
that people would end up parking further further further out out of desperation
could be an issue but at the very least I think it would have been better to
err on the side of more spaces considering it isn't a residential road.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:37:00
Firstly I take your point about heavy pedestrian traffic of that area that was
concern lodged by myself for the care home application and it was also
contained within my written representation for the appeal. Again the
inspector didn't feel it was that way and found that the access that had been
designed up to that point with the tactiles and the severance between the
access and egress point was satisfactory to take that into account. I still don't
but that's what the inspector said and those accesses are designed for
pedestrian egress it's not just an access and egress it's not just for
pedestrians it was noted as well into in the for the care home report the amount
of vehicle daily vehicle movements that Marlow Hill takes hence that was the
basis why the highway authority objected in the first place again pins didn't
find that to be the case and that set precedent.
In terms of the overall vehicle movements,
I did send an email to the case officer
and for your edification, the care home would generate
119 vehicle movements per day
and flats around 68 vehicle movements a day.
And that is using the trip rate information computer system
which is an industry standard and accepted
by planning authorities and the planning inspectorate in terms of extrapolating
likely vehicle movements from proposed developments that are based on surveys
of existing sites and use classes and also it drills down into parameters such
as population within one mile five miles and various other choices that you can
to get the best result possible in terms of other sites
that have similar characteristics.
And that gives you your vehicle movements.
That's it basically.
Any more technical questions?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:39:12
Councillor Hu, it's a technical, yeah?
Thank you.
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:39:19
So, just in your opinion, the in and outs would give the drivers enough vision, exiting
at 30 miles an hour in a hurry to get out in a gap, to see clearly the pedestrians walking
up and down that hill at rush hour.
I just want to confirm that you believe that there's enough of a view for that.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:39:51
That is all part and parcel of what we look at when we're viewing the application
and its merits in the first instance. That specifically comes down to the visibility splays.
As is the case if an access can't get the visibility splays,
say like a new access, then it's something that we object to.
If it's an access with substandard visibility displays
and another use class is being used there,
we make sure that it's not going to intensify
the vehicle movements over its previous use.
But yes, in terms of design, in terms of characteristics,
and it will, should permission be granted
in terms of its construction,
it will comply with safety standards.
and these are standards that have been designed by the,
I think it's the Transport Research Laboratory.
So there's been a lot of work that's gone in
to determine these accesses,
and such as the manual for streets grant guide
and the design manual for roads and bridges
in terms of the visibility displays.
Councillor Miller.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:40:56
I still have a lot of concerns about the fact
Cllr Frances Kneller - 0:41:00
that we've got 19 flats and 19 parking spaces
all unallocated. If it was just one bedroom flats and one for one, fine. We're actually
talking about two bedroom flats and the likelihood that we've got two households in there or
two cars. I'm assuming that the existing design and layout of the schemes as presented doesn't
allow any flexibility for any additional on ground level car parking spaces.
Because once the 19 units or 19 car parking spaces are in use, it's not even very close
by parking, but there's nothing even at ground level where there could be visitor parking
or additional services put in?
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:41:57
The layout is set as is and one would assume that if anything was to change that it would
require another planning application.
The Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance does say in instances where there is 100 %
unallocation of parking spaces,
it provides a more dynamic space.
So that is basically park in whatever space you can,
it's not allocated to a particular unit.
And that's supposed to be more, as I say,
dynamic as the word in the document says.
I'd also say as well in terms of the concerns
about displacement where theoretically would parking go.
Obviously you'd be aware that Marlowe Hill
has enforceable waiting restrictions
and they do extend further out than just Marlowe Hill itself.
In terms of where people would park,
in all instances where we're looking at a parking provision
and there may be a question mark on displacement
and I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here,
But overall, as we asked for Lambeth methodology
parking surveys, and one of the parameters
that we look at is that survey is limited
to 200 metre walking distance of the site.
As that was determined, the fact that was the furthest point
in which people would park their cars
and then walk to the front door.
Beyond that, they're more likely to park close to the site.
So, hence why, in this case, if, as I say,
if displacement was a concern,
then there are enforceable weight
and restrictions to combat that.
Councillor Harris.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:43:58
Thank you very much, Chairman.
For me, my question is, I think it's too much reliance
on the care home to bring in the parking,
the access issues here.
The care home is a far more dominant building
and very clear to pedestrians wandering up and down Marlowe Hill and therefore
would be far easier for someone travelling one of our scooters or
otherwise to take care going past so that concerns me. As far as the parking
the reason why there's restricted parking in Poets Corner is because our
police force used to enjoy parking there and going to work so that had to be
enforced to ensure Leslie's nodding away we've been here a long time the thing is
that that that concerns you so I think it's wrong to compare these two in terms
of parking and the highways matters because they are very different animals
and I come back to what Councillor Collewold was saying in so much as that it
would be easier to to judge this itself and that the the report sadly rely as I
say relies too much on them on the care home to draw its facts and figures and
that's that's a big concern I'd like to see this so we're looking at as you say
we've got to look at the application before us and I just don't think it's
presented very well I won't be voting on it but that you know because I can't but
it's not presented as well as it might be.
Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:45:36
Councillor Townsend, can I remind Councillors
to ask the questions please?
Thanks.
You said that in the appeal,
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:45:49
well in the case, the Care Home case,
you had highways concerns, safety concerns
about vehicle movements and that was about 119 generated.
would you still if it wasn't for what the appeal inspector had said would you
still have those same concerns about the 68 would that still stand and sorry also
in relation to the parking standards the parking guidance is there ever a
situation where you do use bedrooms to calculate parking and if so what sort of
circumstances would you use bedrooms in as opposed to habitable rooms so sorry
questions.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:46:42
Yes technically speaking the Book Exchange Countywide parking guidance does say that
in certain circumstances it's an open plan that you can use bedrooms but as I say
it's been a tried and tested metric that we use and that we've used to determine
many applications over the last 11 years on habitable rooms.
And as I say, it's not...
It was meant...
Their inclusion in bedrooms was meant as a segue between the two, because historically,
as you could appreciate, bedrooms have been used for a long time, but there wasn't an
evidence base behind that.
So it was meant to be a transition thing, and it wasn't that long into...
I think it was in the first three or four months of it being published that we realised
that habitable rooms was the best metric to use them on.
You'll have to forgive me,
what was your first question?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:47:33
Whether your concerns about the vehicle movements
would stand if based on the 68 versus the 119,
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:47:39
regardless of the planning inspector's words?
I think we have to look at what's before us,
And I did express my concern at the increase
of vehicle movements from the houses
to the care home before.
That was dealt with again at the appeal.
So you have your scenario there where I did object,
but that objection was not accepted
by the planning inspector.
And what I would say is if,
and this has happened fortunately only a couple of times
that I can recall in the last 20 years of covering this area,
where we have essentially used the same objection
for a different application,
because we believe that there was precedent to do that,
or there wasn't rather a precedent to do that.
And both times we've been hit by costs
from the planning inspector
for bringing the same objection forward
when it had been dealt with in a previous appeal.
Councillor, sorry, Mr Martin, would you like to say a few words?
Ray Martin - 0:48:51
Yeah, I just wanted to comment on what Councillor Townsend was asking our highways officer.
I completely understand why you asked the question, but you're asking him to ignore
a planning inspector decision and it would be very unwise for us to do that because it
is an important material consideration in the determination of this application.
we could of course go down that route but if a further appeal came in then you
would be opening us up to an award of costs against the council for not taking
into account that material consideration. I do understand that I suppose I wanted
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:49:27
to know if his safety concerns had been allayed by the fact that it was 68
vehicle movements as opposed to 119.
I cannot ask a legal service officer to step in.
Thank you Chairman.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 0:49:43
And along those lines I just wanted to also highlight that highways is one of the technical
areas where if a council or local planning authority wants to refuse an application they
need to have technical evidence to demonstrate that there is harm, there's harm to highway
safety or that there will be unacceptable impacts caused by parking.
But with this application here the evidence just isn't saying that. It
doesn't show that and the officers have gone to quite some length to explain the
evidence and give their view which is that from a highway's perspective the
application is acceptable. Now I do appreciate that this application is part
of a larger site and the rest of the site may or may not come forward for
development but the application that we've got the moment is for this part of
the site and that's what's here now it's come first and the trip generations and
the impacts of that part of the site by this development is acceptable and
that's what the evidence is saying. Thank you. Thank you. I think we've exhausted
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:50:51
with Mr. Hardy with the technical questions
and now I'm gonna open it to all councillors
for a debate who would like to start.
Councillor Tanzer.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:51:00
I know I've asked a lot of questions on this,
particularly in relation to the parking,
but I have to say quite a lot of the concerns
I had from the original committee
have been addressed and explained.
Particularly I was concerned about the,
just the blanket use of the appeal judgement
on a site that was clearly very, very different
to the original care home application.
However, learning a bit about the numbers
and the data behind that has helped me
to get over that hill.
So thank you very much for being here tonight
to explain that.
I've still got concerns about the parking guidance
because I think that it's very misleading,
but that's a policy issue as opposed to an issue
relating to this planning application, I think.
I think it's a bigger issue that we have this
current parking guidance that seems to flex
in whichever way suits.
But I understand your points about that has been
the custom and practise since it came in.
I would say the majority of my concerns have been addressed.
I think that Councillor Nella raised a very good point
about the allocation of parking spaces
and I know that you drew on your professional experience
in the last committee to explain why that would be
a big problem and important.
And I wonder if that's something that we can look
at introducing a condition for allocated spaces.
But those are my initial thoughts.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:52:51
While the office is looking that up,
is there anybody else who wants to say a few words?
Sorry, Councillor Clark.
Councillor Clark, sorry, sorry.
Sorry, no questions, Councillor Clark.
Councillor Nella.
Cllr Frances Kneller - 0:53:17
Coming back on the point regarding the parking spaces, I was just wondering.
Councillor, can I ask a favour if you can put the mic nearer to you?
Thank you.
Just coming back on the point of allocating spaces, whether it could be a condition, either
that there's an allocated space for each flat,
or it's only one parking space per flat,
because then that reduces the problem of having households
with more than one car.
But people are clear from the outset
there's only one parking space per flat, which will at least
ease some of the problems.
Helen Braine - 0:54:02
We have an existing condition on there for the parking
To be laid out as it is, but we can tweak the condition to say one per flat
Should be fine
And I just jump in at that point
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:54:30
I would say that if you have a condition at this point that states that each flat should have its own space
then the guidance would say if there is,
I think it's above 60 % allocation,
then visitor spaces must be provided.
So that would require an amended submission
if a condition was being considered.
And I mean, as in amended,
they would have to amend their parking layout
to have the requisite amount of visitor spaces,
which isn't the case as it stands.
Can I just come back on that?
Cllr Frances Kneller - 0:55:12
Does that apply to allocated, unallocated,
so basically unallocated spaces,
but it's only one space per flat?
Then that gives the flexibility,
if somebody hasn't got a car,
other people can use it for visitors.
Yeah, that's correct.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:55:27
As I mentioned earlier,
the guidance states that 100 % unallocated is supposed to be a more dynamic space.
So it basically come and park wherever you like and it's supposed to be that
position where yes there may be three or four spaces that are never in use
because people don't own cars. Whereas this would have said well you can park
anywhere.
Councillor Addo.
I'm trying not to be confused.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 0:56:00
So the unallocated spaces but we have 19 flats and are you saying it is not possible to put
condition only for those flats and the flat only one car per flat.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:56:24
Theoretically you could, but as I mentioned if it hits a threshold of
allocation then that brings in a visitor requirement, visitor spaces, which is 20 %
of the allocated spaces.
So if you were to allocate one for every flat,
I believe it's 19 is it?
19, then you would require,
was it two?
No, four, sorry, yes, of course it was four.
Four visitor spaces.
And the parking layout is as presented.
Can I just jump in there?
And that presents me a problem.
Ray Martin - 0:57:10
because what highways are telling us is that the unallocating of the spaces
provides more flexible use of those spaces and will cater for the demand
better than if you allocate them. So we're saying with them being
unallocated we've got enough parking to meet our standards. What our highways
officers advising you is that if you wanted them to be allocated you then
potentially haven't got enough parking spaces and that would cause a problem so
I would recommend against that. Can I also mention the issue with
parking and I'm quite happy to ask the highways officer whether this has come
across this situation before as well. If you try allocating them under a planning
condition it then becomes an enforcement issue and how on earth are we supposed
to the planning authority make sure that only the person from
a flat is parking in that allocated space and that nobody
else is parking there.
So it's not the sort of condition we want to put on from
an excuse me from an enforcement perspective anyway.
And generally speaking the management of parking within a
site would be for the owners of the site.
Can I can I just jump in just with one more thing as well.
Mr Matthew Hardy - 0:58:33
I did provide information after the previous committee
that this was discussed at, I think it was March.
And there are sites closer to the town centre,
no sorry, there are sites slightly further away
to the town centre than the application site,
where we have accepted and developments have been permitted
with a lower ratio of parking
than what the parking guidance says,
in recognition that it's a highly sustainable site.
So this level of parking, unallocated parking,
so 19 which effectively if you look at it in numbers
is one space per unit is a higher provision
than some sites that are slightly further out
of the town from the town centre than this one is.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:59:24
Any other questions?
Councillor Townsend?
It's not really a question,
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:59:31
because are we debating now?
Yeah.
I think this issue of unallocated spaces,
it just highlights yet another flaw
in the parking guidance,
and yet another way in which it can be flexed
in order to suit the developer
and provide the least number of parking spaces
they can fit in.
But that's a policy issue,
and it's not, I don't think we can determine
this planning application based on the policy
being really flawed, but I think it's important
to highlight that we've just this evening
come across multiple ways in which the parking guidance
can be manipulated to suit purposes.
Anybody else?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:00:22
Councillor Arthur -Hewitt. Thank you.
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:00:29
And I agree with Councillor Townsend saying that about the whether it's done by habitable
rooms or not, I think that is still an open question in terms of whether the right parking
has been allocated. There is no law that says you have to do it
by habitable bedrooms. It is possible to do it by others.
And I feel like we're almost kind of like trapped by the two applications being so muddied
that I don't think anyone can sort of like, might be entirely wrong, but I'm glad I'm
not voting because this entire report is so muddied.
I wouldn't have a clear way of reading that and making the right answer, especially considering
there is an option to have considered more parking freely available that isn't in that
report.
That is to me a big issue.
Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:01:25
I think the thing is that you've discussed this and it's a policy issue as Councillor
Townsend said.
You know with policy you can always go to parking standards and debate this and tell
them that you're not happy as well and debate the policy and maybe take it to full council
as well I advise you to because obviously there is no misunderstanding so that's what I don't
advise but we are where we are and we have the application in front of us so I think everybody's
had a fair shout on this so can we go for the vote for this as presented on page 20.
The recommendation item 7. Is anybody proposing this and seconding this?
And the Councillors that I'm looking at is Councillor Allyn, Councillor Imre, Councillor
and Nello, Councillor Townsend, Councillor West.
You have the vote.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:02:47
Based on what I said earlier,
on the fact that I think my concerns have been allayed
by having the word from the Highways Officer,
I don't agree with the policy.
I think the policy is misleading and incorrect,
but I don't think personally I have the grounds
to vote against the application, so I'll propose acceptance.
Do we have a seconder?
Sorry, Councillor, Ms. Emma -Hussain, you want?
I'm looking for a seconder for this vote.
Is anybody?
Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:03:30
Yeah, I'll second it.
You can't second it, Councillor,
because you weren't at the original meeting, sorry.
I've never done this before,
but as Councillor Townsend has proposed it,
I'm happy to second it.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:03:48
Can we go for a vote, please?
All those in favour of the recommendation set out
on item seven can you put your hands up please?
And those against?
Abstentions?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:04:28
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:04:37
So on the basis that there were four people abstaining and two people voting in favour,
the motion to approve in accordance with the officer's recommendation hasn't been carried.
So the committee do need to reach a decision on the planning application because that is
the role of the committee, we do need to determine the application. We've heard the evidence
and the officer's opinion on the evidence in terms of highway. In terms of the policies,
I appreciate that there are concerns that members have with the wording that's in the
policies, but they are the adopted policies. And we can't, here today, we can't change
those policies and the wording of them. That goes through the local plan process. And the
test for us is to look at those policies and we should be determining the
application in accordance with the local plan policies unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. The report sets out all the material
considerations including highway matters and including the MPPF policies and the
outcome is and the advice is that the application is acceptable. So it will
I need somebody to propose and second a motion.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:05:56
Just to clarify, I can't vote,
but I assume what you described there,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:06:08
you mean page seven where it says recommendation,
grant permission, subject to the conditions
set out in the report, is what the proposal is,
and that's what you're afraid to second and voting for.
So you're not saying you're happy,
you're just saying it's permission subject
to conditions set out in the report.
So rather than you're not actually approving per se,
you were just saying it's permission subject
to the conditions set out in the report.
So just the rest of the committee understand
what they're actually signing up to.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:06:39
Is there an alternative proposal?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:06:52
Is it worth having a very brief adjournment with the six that are voting to try and work
through that or is that not an option?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:07:03
We'll take a five to ten minutes comfort break and those councillors, Councillor Allam, Councillor
Councillor Nella, Councillor Townsend, Councillor West, if you could approach the bench and
we'll have a quick discussion. Thank you.
And the rest of the Councillors, you can have a comfort break.

5 24/08021/OUT - 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe HP11 1QL

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:07:28
After a discussion with the members, I'm going to go back to the vote again.
On page 20, item number seven,
the recommendation is set out before you.
Can I have a proposer for that item, please?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:07:51
Councillor Townsend.
Can I have a seconder?
Councillor Imran Hussain.
Can I have all those in favour of the proposal
put by Councillor Townsend?
Chairman, can I just make a comment that I am voting for this but doing so very reluctantly
Cllr Arman Alam - 1:08:12
based upon the information that has been provided?
You can say that, but you put your hand up so you're voting for it. So those in favour
for those against abstentions, so a recommendation is taken and the proposal is taken.
Planning of the application has gone through. Thank you. Approved.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:08:39
Moving on to item agenda six.

6 25/05970/FUL - 16 High Heavens Wood, Marlow Bottom SL7 3QQ

I'd like to hand over to Ms Jenny Irons who will introduce this item.
Over to you Jenny.
Thank you Chairman.
Helen Braine - 1:09:25
Jenny Ion - 1:09:28
So the application site is 16 High Heavens Woods in Marlowe Bottom and the proposal is
the redevelopment of the site for 20 dwellings which is a mix of two one -bedroom dwellings,
two two -bedroom dwellings, seven three -bedroom dwellings and nine four -bedroom dwellings
along with alterations to the access and parking and landscaping.
There is an update an additional statement has been received from the applicant addressing
representations and additional information has been received from our education officers
regarding the education contributions in response to a query that was raised by a member, along
with a clarification on a point relating to tree matters also in response to a query from
a member.
And there is just some slight adjustments to a couple of the conditions.
So the application site comprises an area of approximately 1 .14 hectares, and it's at
the west end of High Heavens Wood, which is at the north end of Marlow Bottom.
It's currently occupied by a bungalow in its associated outbuildings with the
wider area forming the garden for the property. It is allocated for development
with an indicative capacity of 20 dwellings in the adopted local plan.
A site -specific policy, policy RUR 11 applies. The proposed development
comprises, as I said, a mix of one, two and three and four bedroom dwellings, seven
of which would be provided as affordable housing. These are primarily two -storey
detached houses but the scheme does also include three bungalows and a terrace
of three houses. The proposed layout will continue the existing road in a westerly
direction with two spurs off in a northerly direction. The site is
surrounded by woodland on three sides. The woodland to the north is replanted
ancient woodland and the scheme includes a 15 metre buffer along the northern
boundary. There have been some amendments to the scheme during the course of the
application most notably to the layout in the northeast corner where the
orientation of the bungalows has been changed by turning them through 90
degrees to face the spur road. Additional and revised information has also been
submitted during the course of the application to address issues including
surface water drainage, landscaping and tree canopy cover. If we look at now at
the the plans the first plan that we have up there is the site layout plan
which you can see the continuation of the existing cul -de -sac with houses on
south side and the two spurs to the north.
So the next plan is a plan which we have received
which shows the proposed tree planting
which are the little circles that you can see added
with trees in a number of the front gardens
and in the area of green space at the entrance to the site.
We've also received a plan which identifies
the proposed boundary treatments.
There will be retaining walls to the north and to the south because of the
slope of the site. The plot boundaries would mainly be divided by close -boarded
fencing. There are a couple of boundary walls to the public side of gardens
where they face the road and there was also some hedge planting as well.
This plan shows the drainage strategy. It's a little bit difficult to see but
Essentially, the blue areas are where there would be proposed permeable paving with cycleways
beneath some of the areas of paving, notably the road and some of the parking area.
Thank you.
I'm now going to show you the elevations.
There are a variety of house types within the development.
So this first slide shows you the houses on plots one, two, and three, which are the first
three properties to the south of the access as you enter the development.
This is one for plots five and six which further up that south side of the road.
That's plot seven which is also on that south side. Plots eight and nine.
Next one, that's for Plot 10, Plots 4, 11 and 12, Plot 13, Plot 14.
Then we have the terrace, which is some of the affordable housing, Plots 15 to 17.
We have the pair of bungalows, also affordable housing, on Plots 18 and 19.
And then finally we have Plot 20, which is further bungalow, which is also part of the
affordable housing proposed.
Now we've got some just plans to show you the garages we've got to mix.
We've got some single garages, some double garages and some in between.
So that's the double I think and the next one.
Yes that's the one in between slightly larger than single but only counted as one parking space.
Next one.
We have also got a street scene which shows the one at the top shows you the houses on the south
side of the access. You can see there on the left the house at the end of the
cul -de -sac that they would be adjacent to. And then at the bottom that is a
cross -section which shows you the terrace of three houses and the two
adjacent on the spur road at the eastern end of the site.
Next one. And that's finally we've got site layout plan again. Next. We'll take you
through the photographs.
So this is taken with the sites.
And so the rear of the photographer
looking back down High Heavens Wood,
so you can get a feel for the street.
And you can see some of the development
on the opposite side of the valley rising up the slope.
Next one.
So this is the access point into the site
at the end of the cul -de -sac.
And then next one.
And that's closer in.
You can start to see views into the sites and some
of the slope of the land.
Next one.
This is the existing bungalow which will be removed.
This is the south part of the site, the eastern boundary.
So you can see that's just behind the trees there, the last house in the cul -de -sac at
the moment.
We're going to take you, basically look at, gradually take you to swing round in a clockwise
direction around the site.
Next photograph that shows you the southern boundary.
You can just see the eastern boundary off to the left.
The next one that's towards the corner there, the southwest corner.
The next one, so that's the southwest corner there as well.
That's now looking directly towards the west boundary.
You can see in that photograph how the land slopes down from the south boundary and also
down from the north boundary.
It's sort of a slight hollow.
That's the line of these existing surface water flow route across the site in that lower
part.
So that's taking us to the northwest corner.
And then round again, looking towards the northern part of the boundary, you can just see some
fencing in that photograph. That's the surround for where there was
once a swimming pool.
You can see the bungalow, so we're looking towards the northeast corner of the site.
That's the garage at the side of the bungalow,
towards the east boundary, and then that is the east boundary. You can just see the property
to the other side of the fence on the right is the adjoining bungalow.
And then that's one final view looking towards the northwest corner of the site and some
of the ancient woodland there.
So the recommendation is set out for you in the report with conditions.
So the key issues are set out on pages 42 to 51.
They are the design and layout of the scheme, the amenity for future occupiers of the development
and the impact on the amenity of existing residents,
the impact on the character and appearance of the area
and the national landscape in which the site is located,
access highway safety and parking provision issues,
surface water drainage, the impact on ecology
and achieving biodiversity net gain,
the impact on the surrounding woodland
and provision of canopy cover within the development
and the provision of affordable housing.
So the recommendation that members should be minded
to grant permission subject to a section 106 obligation
to secure the affordable housing in accordance with the conditions which are set out in the
report on pages 53 to 66 as amended by the changes in the update sheet.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:17:54
Thank you. We have a number of public speakers on this item. We'll be hearing from them shortly.
They are Councillor Anna Crabtree, Councillor Carol Heap, Councillor Tony Hill and an objector
who is Mr Bernard and the applicant who is Mr McCarthy.
So Councillor Anna Crabtree, would you like to start off?
You've got three minutes.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 1:18:21
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm here this evening to represent some of the many residents' concerns about High Heavenswood.
For those who know this part of Marlow Bottom, it is characterised by a few key features
that are not easily discernible from the maps shown in the planning application.
Firstly, it is at the far end of the valley. The land slopes up steeply on either side
of Marlow Bottom and this is hugely relevant to how the proposed development will be perceived
by neighbours and the surrounding area, how water will drain from the site and also to
how active travel routes in and out of the road will work.
Secondly, the valley means that traffic to High Heavens Wood has natural restrictions
on which routes it can take. Some vehicles use Ragman's Lane to get to High Wycombe,
but this is a single -mile, sorry, it's a mile -long, single -track lane with few passing places.
It is steep, with sharp bends, poor visibility, an already crumbling road surface, no footpath,
and unsuitable for construction traffic. The main route to High Heavens Wood is along
the main road, known simply as Marlow Bottom, which all the residential roads in the village
funnel down into. The road is frequently congested due to people accessing their homes and also
cars travelling to Burford School. There are no other routes into the village, so naturally
the wear and tear on the central road is high and blockages in the flow of traffic form
easily. Every additional house built in Marlow Bottom will undoubtedly make the situation
worse.
Lastly, the proposed development site is nestled up against the ancient woodland at the end
of the valley. The woods are a popular area for dog walkers, and parking in high Heavens
Wood is frequently taken up by walkers using the nearby footpaths for which there is no
dedicated parking. It's concerning to see that the Council's tree officer has had so
many concerns about the protected trees at this location. The 15 -metre buffer around
the site is the minimum requirement to protect the ancient woodland and I would encourage
members to seriously consider whether this plan goes far enough in protecting the nature
of this area within the Chilterns natural landscape and local wildlife such as the long -eared
bats.
The conditions applied to the development of this site will be key to determining whether
this project is acceptable. I'm sure the flooding comments and proposed conditions will be carefully
weighed up by councillors but I would also ask that you consider what other limitations
may be imposed. For example, could section 106 funding be used to pay for a feasibility
study for a dual use cycle footway to Wickham via the Asda tunnel which would avoid the
need to go up and down the hill into Wickham when cycling. Given the slope of the road,
have the elevations been fully considered from the perspective of existing homeowners?
And lastly, when most garages these days are used as additional storage or living space,
will the 15 parking spaces within garages actually be used for parking and how can this
be guaranteed in the future. I urge council members to think carefully about what's being
approved here and how its undoubted impact can be most effectively mitigated for existing
residents. Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:21:22
Do any committee members have any points of clarification with the speaker? No? Can we
move on to Councillor Carroll -Heape? Three minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Carol Heap - 1:21:36
It's clear that this application is not without some merit.
I'm very pleased to see that there is some provision of affordable rented housing within the plan,
and that is very welcome.
But I really have concerns about the density of this planning proposal
and the number of houses that are being squeezed
into this plot.
It's already been said that this is a sloping site
and it's got a known surface water runoff route.
My concern is that with this number of dwellings
on this site, so going from one dwelling to 20,
and the loss of a hectare of grassland to soak up water
and the existing trees that there will be an increase in surface water flooding
I note the measures in the in the application regarding permeable paving
and drainage trenches but we won't know whether those will actually work until
the site has been has been actually developed so I've linked this the loss
of the trees on that site obviously are going to make that situation worse and I
the likely survival of any replacement trees is also a concern as is the impact
on the biodiversity of the site as a whole hole and the adjacent woodland so
I would ask the committee to consider these points please and their
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:23:18
deliberations before they make a decision thank you any point of
clarification with the speaker members? No? Thank you. Moving on to Councillor
Tony Hill Marlowe, Bottom Parish Council.
Public Speaker - 1:23:33
Would you like to put your mic on? Yes, thank you. I'm a member of Marlowe,
Bottom Parish Council and a resident of the area of the parish close to High
Heavens Wood. We are dependent on two roads to access to and exit from the valley from
our houses. Ragman's Lane, which has been mentioned already in that very fine presentation
by the Councillor, and Marlow Bottom or Marlow Bottom Road as it's sometimes called. Every
Every single vehicle going to or from High Heavens Wood must pass through one of these.
Lorries on these roads pose problems that will make our access and exit at best unpredictable
and potentially impossible and dangerous.
Conditions I understand for granting planning approval are that trucks and lorries will
not be permitted to use Marlowe Bottom at times when students are coming and going by
cars to Burford School.
I would ask that conditions for granting planning approval
to the traffic management arrangements
are much more demanding.
I propose three areas for more stringent obligations
on the developers that should appear.
If anyone on the A404, M40, or M4 puts,
sorry, puts the name of this road in the sat nav, they will be sent immediately up to Handycross
and have to come down Ragman's Lane. It doesn't matter what size of vehicle you are, that's
what your sat nav does if you want to get to that end of the lane. They'll be sent up
and if they want to leave and they put it in, they put in any address up near the M40,
they will immediately be taken up Ragman's Lane to join the A404AM40.
Now Ragman's Lane as has been mentioned single lane, blind bends, very short spaces,
just about a line passing and at the moment you can hardly get past without mowing down half the hedge at the same time.
This lane is not wide enough for delivery vans let alone lorries.
and I don't think residents and your voters should be subjected to even the slightest
possibility of meeting a lorry in Ragman's Lane.
I ask that there be a condition that at each end of Ragman's Lane there should be a very
large notice, the responsibility of the developers banning all construction traffic under threat
of a real penalty until the development is complete and I would like someone to cheque
that it's up there every day.
I would also ask that they provide a named phone ready contact with ultimate responsibility
who can be talked to on the phone, always available by any resident if there is any
construction traffic on Ragman's Lane.
School times restrictions, my second one.
The same thing really except for the fact.
Time's up.
Thank you, Councillor.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:26:44
Any points for clarification with the speaker?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:26:51
Councillor Townsend. Sorry, would you be able to just clarify that what the third
proposal you had in order to mitigate construction traffic? The second one is
Public Speaker - 1:27:01
that there should be the same kind of information spot if anybody sees
lorries outside of time outside the school outside school time. The last one
would be some guarantee that during the construction,
the damage that will be done by the lorries
up and down Marlowe Bottom Road
will be repaired as we go along,
because at the moment the surfaces are bad
and dangerous anyway, in spite of all the patching
that everybody has tried to put in.
Thank you.
Any other members?
No?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:27:39
Thank you.
Moving on to Mr John Bernard, one of the objectors.
Through the minutes to you.
Public Speaker - 1:27:52
Chair, Members, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the residents.
The Local Plan says this site has an indicative capacity of 20 dwellings.
We ask the word indicative not to be treated as meaning inevitable.
The detailed application must still prove that 20 homes can be delivered
that are safe, sustainable and sensitive to their surroundings.
We say this has not been done and are raising the following concerns.
Regarding access and movement, the scheme relies on a shared surface with no footpath.
Pedestrian, wheelchair users, children and all vehicles will be put into the same restricted space,
creating a clear risk of vehicle pedestrian conflict and harm.
The site is also poorly served by sustainable transport.
The bus is infrequent, not viable for commuting.
The small local shops are around two kilometres away.
For most households a car will be a necessity.
That is particularly troubling for a scheme which relies on affordable homes and accessible
dwellings as part of its planning benefit.
There also appears to be a total lack of consideration for the additional traffic pressure that the
development will inevitably put on the already congested Marlow Bottom Road.
The police design outcry officer originally raised a holding objection.
On the amended plans they said several concerns remained outstanding and should be addressed
by before approval.
That includes practical matters around parking, rear access and boundaries.
These are not cosmetic details.
They affect safety, security and the development, how the development will function.
On drainage a surface water flow route crosses the site increasing the need for robust water
management. The lead local flood authority first raised concerns and only
withdrew its objection subject to further drainage design and a
whole life maintenance plan. To us that feels like a prove now, solve later. The
low water pressure to the site appears to have been given no consideration. Is
this another item on the deal with it later list? On biodiversity RUR11
identifies this as a woodland edge site with important constraints including
ancient woodland to the north on the evidence before us residents cannot be
satisfied that this scheme will enhance or adequately protect the woodland
setting. The reliance on conditions off -site biodiversity measures and
future management suggests this site has been developed at a density that risks
harm during construction and long after occupation. Construction traffic is
another unresolved risk. The proposed condition requires construction traffic
management plan before work start but residents say members should require certainty before
approval.
It should be clear and it should rule out any use of Ragman's Lane.
In conclusion, the pattern to us is obvious.
All issues raised, traffic, accessibility, drainage, safety trees, biodiversity all point
to the same conclusion.
The density is wrong.
Time's up, thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:30:54
Members, do you have any questions?
technical questions no thank you move on to mr. Wesley McCarthy the applicant you
Public Speaker - 1:31:12
have three minutes chairman members thank you for allowing me to speak on
behalf of Oakford homes this application is not a speculative application for
development in the green belt the process to remove the site from the
green belt through the preparation and adoption of the Wickham local plan
started in 2016. The location in terms of policy RER 11 followed extensive public
consultation, technical assessment and independent examination. The local plan
inspector confirmed in 2019 that the site was deliverable and could be
brought forward in a manner envisaged by the plan, establishing the principle for
development of the site. The inspector also considered infrastructure delivery
for the whole plan which included educational requirements.
Therefore, the question before members tonight is whether the proposal represents an appropriate
form of development within the context of the West Area's housing supply of 1 .98 years.
We and more importantly your officers consider that it does.
At a density of only 18 dwellings per hectare, the proposal includes three affordable bungalows,
two of which will meet the wheelchair user standard.
These homes will provide much needed accessible accommodation for older and
disabled residents and households who cannot access market housing. The
development provides a wide variety of bespoke house types rarely seen today.
Given the proposed mix of housing, your housing officers support a proposal and
we have terms agreed with the Housing Association regarding the delivery and
management of the affordable homes. The proposed landscape led layout
incorporates significant landscaping and tree planting which exceeds the council's requirement
for 25 % canopy cover, whilst the retaining wall closest to the woodland buffer is outside
the root protection area for those trees and it actually measures 60 metres.
Concerns have been raised regarding traffic, parking, drainage and ecology.
These matters have been assessed by the relevant technical specialist.
The application included a draught traffic management plan, but the final version will be approved
as required by Condition 9.
Your officer's report confirms that 61 parking spaces are required, but 65 spaces are provided,
together with sheds for cycle storage.
This application evolved since its submission in April 25 through a constructive engagement
with officers and consultees, which resulted in amendments to improve the scheme and address
technical matters.
This results in a development that delivers quality market and affordable homes, environmental improvements,
whilst respecting the character and landscape of the smaller bottom.
A sole contribution of approximately £500 ,000 will be made, of which £75 ,000 will be allocated to the parish council.
There are no objections from statutory consultees to the proposal, and the officer recommendation confirms that planning commissions should be granted.
We respectfully ask members to support the officer recommendation.
Time's up, thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:34:14
You can ask members if they have any questions for clarification.
No, thank you.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:34:24
Councillor Townsend.
Sorry, just one.
You mentioned that the development is outside of the route protection zone.
But I think in the tree officer's report, which I know we do have an amendment to, but
I don't think it specifically addresses that point, the tree officer was concerned that
actually that wasn't the case.
Public Speaker - 1:34:50
What's the data that you're relying upon to make that statement?
Well, in my statement just now, I did mention that it relates to the ancient woodland, so
that would be the northern boundary.
The concerns that your tree officers raised related to the trees on the western boundary
and trees within the development site and in particular you referenced a site that I
hope you saw today is actually dead.
Any other questions?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:35:20
We now move to technical questions for the officer if there are any from the committee
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:35:32
members. Council Collewood. Thank you chairman. It relates back to the updates.
It's a shame the education aren't actually physically here. I'd still dispute the
feedback about the fact that it's going to be over... there's a good
overcapacity in terms of school spaces because it doesn't just relate to
Burford and all the primary schools, it does relate to Great Mile High School and they
haven't addressed that part of the point.
And my point was it was the whole of the ecosystem
for the whole of the Marlowe area.
So they've given me a partial response,
but it's not a full response.
So I guess there's no educational services with us.
It's a shame.
But I guess the response we've got
is what we've got, I presume.
That's my query with the technical update, Chairman.
Jenny Ion - 1:36:31
Thank you. I did go back to the Education Officer. The area in question is what they
call the Marlowe Planning Area, so it does include the wider Marlowe area. And the figures
who provided me do take into account the school closures at Little Marlowe and St Peter's.
So the figures that have been provided to me are that there are 240 places available,
but there is still capacity spare places available
within that figure notwithstanding
the closure of schools and therefore they cannot
justify asking for an education contribution.
It does note that school may be full at the moment
but that it is taking students out of catchment at present.
But say I have asked them to go back in the light
of the queries that were raised this morning about
the closure of local schools to make sure that that has been
taken into account with the information they provide us
and they have assured me that it has been and that they cannot justify asking for a contribution
because there are spare places available according to their planning figures.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:37:30
I might relate to primary Mr Chairman but they have not addressed the secondary scenario
and Marlow is full and actually over capacity and that's my point was they've only given
me a partial answer in terms of, I still don't agree with their answer in terms of primary
but they still haven't agreed about the secondary bit.
both Great Marlborough schools full,
but Griboire school is full,
and they're over capacity both already now.
So I just flagged that Chairman that actually,
they should have actually come back with a full answer
both for primary and secondary,
because this number of houses will generate
both primary school children
and secondary school children, Chairman,
especially when you have four -edged detached types.
So that's my query on the technical bits.
I'll come back with other things later, Chairman.
Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:38:12
Are there any other questions technical?
Cllr Frances Kneller - 1:38:18
Councillor Nella. I've got a couple. Councillor Nella can I just ask you please pull the microphone forward so we can hear you.
Right is that better? Just pull the microphone forward. I was really
pleased to see that there's going to be some mobility wheelchair accessible
bungalows as part of this proposal.
Given that there is a shortage of purpose -built units
for people who have high -level needs,
is there the likelihood that the units, these bungalows,
would actually be at a level where people who have severe disabilities
could be accommodated?
From the design stage, we'll be looking at telematics,
hoists and beams and things like that,
knowing that there is a shortage in Buckinghamshire.
I'm afraid I'm not an expert on disability design standards for dwellings.
Jenny Ion - 1:39:20
What I can tell you is that they will be designed to what's called the M4 -3 standard
under the building regulations, which is what we require as a policy.
And beyond that, I can't advise further on that particular point.
Thank you.
Cllr Frances Kneller - 1:39:34
The next part I was interested in, in relation to the building sustainability,
interested to see that there's air source heat pumps that are being put in as standard.
But I couldn't see there was any reference to things like solar panels or EV charging points,
whether these were going to go in and do we have any idea of the sort of level of energy performance certificate rating.
Are we going to go as high as we can or expect it to be as high as we can?
Jenny Ion - 1:40:08
I can't tell you about the energy rating per se.
The applicant has advised that they will be looking to instal solar as well because that's
going to become a requirement for building regulations in 2027.
We do also have an EV charging point plan submitted as part of the application and we
are proposing to secure the provision of points by condition.
But again, this is also a matter that's now covered by building regulations as well.
Cllr Frances Kneller - 1:40:31
Another point in relation to sustainability is given the concerns that have been raised
about the surface water, is there opportunities there to look at rainwater harvesting within
Jenny Ion - 1:40:43
the estate and use of grey water?
The surface water scheme that's been put forward does include some sort of water butt type
facility for the houses as well.
But they haven't looked at rainwater harvesting per se.
You do need obviously to have the right space
for storage tanks and so forth for that.
And there's a cost involved.
So that is not part of the proposal per se.
But we will be requiring by condition
that the housing meets the higher standard
of water efficiency in terms of water usage
to try and reduce water usage from the occupants.
But no, there's not a rainwater harvesting proposed specifically other than these sort
of water butt type pods that are proposed.
Lovely.
Cllr Frances Kneller - 1:41:36
And my last question is in relation to the comment that was raised regarding shared surfaces,
obviously for pedestrians and drivers and road users.
Is there the potential on this area to make it a 20 mile an hour zone to
minimise the movement of traffic and speed around the development should it
progress? I think I'll defer to my highway colleague on that whether you
Jenny Ion - 1:42:02
could make it 20 mile per hour. We're not proposing to adopt this date so no I
think is the answer to that but we are satisfied that the shared surface is
designed to the appropriate standards is not acceptable
for the number of dwellings that are proposed.
Thank you very much.
Ray Martin - 1:42:20
Councillor Collingwood.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:42:23
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:42:25
Thank you, I forgot to ask a question about trip generation
because I did a quick calculation
based on the previous application, Chairman,
that we had 19 spaces there
and we had 68 daily trip generations.
We have 65 spaces here,
so I worked out a quick rule of thumb,
roughly speaking, it must be around about 227 daily trip generations,
particularly the larger size housing, even though it's 19 and 20 houses in effect,
but because you've got one, two, three and four bedroom homes,
so I don't know whether the Highway Officers can give us an idea
whether that's being reasonable in there or underestimating at that
in terms of the daily trip generation versus the previous application being 68 a day.
And this is probably about 227 is my guesstimate,
but hopefully he can be able to tell us what reality is chairman. Thank you.
Mr Hardy would you like to come back?
Jenny Ion - 1:43:18
I'm just looking I'm not sure if I've got a figure in the comments for trip
generation per se. Normally a trip generation is calculated not on the basis
of number of parking spaces but on the size of the dwellings proposed with an
average depending on the size of around four to six trips per dwelling I think
Mr Hardy might confirm.
But certainly when this application was reviewed by Mr Hardy,
he's satisfied that the number of trips that were generated
can be accommodated within the highway network through Marlowe Bottom.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:43:51
Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:43:54
Thank you.
One of the comments made about the possible condition
of on Ragman's Lane during development.
For me, I accidentally drove around down there
and I was absolutely petrified.
I guess you get used to it when you live there,
but it is literally petrifying with the sort of turns
and unless you know it well, it's quite a challenge.
And I'm wondering whether, because it is literally
on top of Ragman's Lane, this development,
and it is a big concern in terms of safety
of anything larger than a mini or a smart car in terms of getting past somebody else,
whether there could be some condition put on there to have fresh highway signs to limit
what's allowed to drive down there, so it's an officially sort of track road to put off
anything large going down there, and so that lorries and caravans and everything else that
have their own sat nav systems that that comes off there
because I think when you're building more residentially
up into that kind of road,
it's natural people are gonna drive up there,
it's the quickest way to get to Handy Cross,
otherwise you've got a very about the houses.
So I think in advance of anyone thinking
of purchasing a house there,
you'd want to kind of like let them know
the limits of that road.
So I think maybe there should be a condition
that highways look at that in terms of securing that
as a track road not suitable for large vehicles
and make that clearly displayed on the road.
Is that something that's feasible as a condition?
Jenny Ion - 1:45:32
We've certainly got a construction traffic
management plan condition.
And having heard what members have said,
we can note that maybe some signage
to deter construction traffic might be appropriate.
We're just trying to see what there already is
in terms of signage.
Can we just zoom on that?
It does actually say at the bottom of Magrangam's name that it's a single track road with parking
places and I think that says it's not suitable for heavy goods vehicles. I think there may
also be, I would be surprised if there wasn't similar signage at the top, but it says it's
a single track road with passing places and not suitable for heavy goods vehicles. There's
existing signage at the bottom that says that. We need to cheque what it says at the top.
because there may already be that signage in place.
The construction traffic management plan,
we would expect there to be sort of a routing plan
for construction traffic that they would disseminate
to delivery vehicles that would be accessing the site
as part of that.
And we would also look at that timing of deliveries,
so that would avoid school drop -off and pick -up times.
There's also a signage at the top end already which says it's a single track road with passing
places and not suitable for heavy good vehicles.
So there is existing signage.
So we don't need additional signage but we could suggest that as part of the construction
traffic management plan there's temporary signage to make it clear that it's not suitable
for construction traffic for this particular development.
I think I have seen that done on a development I've done once before which was in sort of
over in the Hamilton Valley where some of the road
wasn't suited and there was a particular routing agreement.
So I don't see why we couldn't include that
as part of the construction traffic management plan
requirement for a sign at the top.
Thank you.
I think Councillor here with Sat -and -Aps
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:47:37
you can put in the subheadings speed limits,
height restrictions and all that.
so you can take your, but if you put the fastest,
then you're gonna get the fastest way of travelling,
so that would be one way to go up there.
Sat Nav, it's down to you.
Moving on to Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:48:03
I think you partially addressed part of the question
I was going to ask, but essentially,
to what extent can we incorporate the requests
that the parish council have made
into the construction management plan?
So the first was limiting construction traffic on Ragman's
which we've just spoken about.
And the school restrictions.
But I think then there was also the request
for the provision of a contact number
for residents to alert developer to,
in the circumstances where that's being breached.
And I think the other one was for repairs
to the highway to be carried out
as we go along, so during the construction phase.
Jenny Ion - 1:48:49
Just been conferring Mr Hardy on the point about the contact that we wouldn't normally
include that in a construction traffic management plan.
That will be something that the applicant could however make available for residents
if there is necessary that they need a point of contact which could be shared.
But we wouldn't normally include that as part of a construction traffic management plan.
I think we've already addressed the issue of the timing of the schools and
also of the use of Regman's Lane but we could definitely can cover those points
as part of the construction traffic management plan. And the final one that
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:49:22
they asked about was repairs being carried out as during the construction
Jenny Ion - 1:49:26
Mr Matthew Hardy - 1:49:29
phase to the highway. Yes there are provisions under section 59 of the
surveys and surveys at the end of the construction period, where a survey is taken of the network
to the development site from usually the main drag.
So this would be Marlowe, bottom Marlowe, bottom road.
Identify the surface as it is and then the post -construction survey would identify any
issues that are most likely being caused by construction
vehicles through the construction process.
And so is it possible to include that as a condition?
How do you, how do you enact that?
That will be part of the construction
traffic management plan.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:50:20
Councillor Adho.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:50:25
Thank you, I think one of my questions
have been answered already.
The other point on conditions that have been raised
or identified is one by Councillor Carol Heap on flooding and water surface.
And the other aspect as well is how would we ensure or how do you ensure, you have ensured
in the past of these conditions being maintained?
Like the roads, do you have to wait until the whole process or do we have offices or
engineers checking so that we don't have to wait for the damage to be done before the
Jenny Ion - 1:51:05
The damage question to do with the surface water drainage or to do with the highways.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:51:11
I've raised about the highways which is a continuation of where you've just finished
and also the water surface I think that Councillor Carroll -Hip raised.
Jenny Ion - 1:51:22
If I start with the surface water drainage first.
So the lead local flood authority are consulted
as a statutory consultee because of the size
of the development.
They have required additional information
during the course of the application to demonstrate
that a surface water drainage strategy could come forward
that is feasible.
So for example, in some instances,
it might be the infiltration is proposed,
but the ground conditions are not suitable.
And therefore that wouldn't be a suitable strategy.
They are satisfied with the information
that has been put forward to them in terms of calculations for surface water runoff,
which take into account climate change, and that the scheme of permeable paving and the
Soakways proposed would have sufficient capacity to take the surface water that would be generated
by the development to prevent increasing runoff from the site to cause flooding elsewhere.
As we've said, there is an existing flow route.
they have made sure that that is not obstructed as part of the development.
It's beyond the scope of the development to improve that situation. It just has to make
sure that it doesn't make that situation any worse than it currently is at the moment.
They're satisfied from the information that they've got before them that the technical details that
that can be done. Final details will be agreed by a condition so we've got the actual construction
details of that and that will also include a plan for maintenance of the
surface water drainage scheme to make sure that it continues to function. If
it's not maintained that will be an enforcement issue. In terms of the
condition survey I think that you've suggested could repairs be done during
the course of construction. Normally it will wait I think until the end of
construction to repair any damage at the end, not be done during the course of
of works.
Councillor Conlon Wood.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:53:24
It was following on your point, Chairman, about the fact that a large number of delivery
drivers just use ordinary sat -nav with fastest and just ignore the HGV signs.
I get we could put additional signs as part of a condition.
could it be possible to put physical barriers so cars could get through but
not physical HGVs as part of that temporary process as in part of that
construction management plan that you've got the topic so where blacksmith arms
is at the top particularly there's ability for them to then turn around and
then they can reverse back out and there's a turning room to then go back
out onto the main highways if that makes sense so if you put physical barriers at
the top particularly that would actually be gay a lot of the HTVs going the wrong
way if that makes sense Jim they'd then force them to go down the other way so I
don't know whether that can be incorporated within the construction
management plan part or not or is it just signage only because it seemed to
me that because no offence the delivery man will just go whatever I need to get
to fastest and then we'll have scenarios that Councillor Hazel has just
articulated because I've seen it there many times before where you didn't get
head -ons and etc crashes etc so just thinking about how we protect the
residents overall.
Ray Martin - 1:54:47
The issue here is when you start putting regulations or physical things on the
Mr Matthew Hardy - 1:54:53
highway they are subject to public consultation at the moment it is free
flow to all traffic although there is our advisory size of science has been
mentioned before, I would say that the highway authority would not accept that
and that we would, like in most signage cases, that motorists actually take notice
of the signs, but no we wouldn't accept physical means within the highway to
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:55:28
prevent access. How do we enforce Chairman? So say someone then just totally
ignores what Mr. Harge has rightly said,
is that's what the rules say.
With our new CCTV cameras, our new enforcement team,
have we now got an ability where we can go, actually,
you've broken the law, you've broken the rules.
Is there a mechanism we could use
in terms of our own internal resources,
if that makes sense, to make sure that they do behave
themselves, Chairman?
I don't know.
Rather than necessarily put a physical barrier,
but I get additional signage.
But we want to have teeth to go, no, no, when we went,
you're not going down the reference lane you're not going around the lane so I
don't know the officers come back with that on that well they need to have a
discussion with me outside of both the parking team force between because there
is the new CCTV ability we have with our own cameras and our own physical cars
with that they're on they can do enforcement
Mr Matthew Hardy - 1:56:22
We found that the most effective methods are when the contractors work with our highway
officers, our delivery team who oversee site works and when people report vehicles that
are in contravention of the construction traffic management plan.
It sounds simple but as I say it is effective is that our delivery team inspectors do have
words with the site staff and usually that is enough to prevent reoccurrences from happening.
Any more technical questions?
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:57:09
So I'm going to open this and now to debate who would like to start the debate.
Councillor Harris.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:57:15
Thank you very much, Chair.
I can understand residents wanting to hear the arguments for and against this development.
It's certainly a very pleasant backwater.
Looking at the traffic issues, I noticed that a lot of the houses in the area seem to have
carriage driveways.
So as far as parking on the streets is concerned, it's likely not to be as severe as it might
be in other areas. It's quite an eclectic mix of housing in the area and I think the
development matches that. Although the drawings give the impression the houses have been very
close together in places, I think that's quite usual in the latest developments that we're
seeing and certainly be under pressure to squeeze the maximum out of land, unfortunately,
thanks to the government policy. As far as the mean -to -you area is concerned, the houses
seem to have reasonable gardens.
You've also got the added amenity
of the local foot baths as well.
So if you've got walkers, et cetera,
there are alternatives.
And this is private land anyway.
So I know a lot of people walk their boats on private land,
but effectively it's not open space.
For me, I think the detail of some of the houses
could be better, there could be a few more chimneys,
although moving away from chimneys,
anything with exhaust pipe seems to be outlawed these days, but I think just to
tie them in a little bit better with what is there locally and
traditionally, but it just seems to be the last part of a jigsaw puzzle. I
think that it fits quite well in that regard. As far as Ragman's Lane is
concerned, I drive down Ragman's Lane, yes it's not great, but I think if you go to
you'd be terrified by comparison with Ragman's Lane.
So we're gonna find that problem all over the county
and people manage.
Although I do think that it'd be a good idea
as far as substantial traffic is concerned
to have some form of incentive not to use it.
Because obviously it's got to be kept open for the farmers.
I mean we can't put a forcible barrier in there
and then say to the farm,
we've got to get out of your tractor
every five minutes to move the barrier
in order to access your fields.
So for me, I'm happy to go along with the recommendation
of the officers, and I'm willing to hear others
who have a discerning opinion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Harris.
Anybody else?
Councillor Collingwood.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:59:56
Moving on to the actual overall application,
The term objects to the principle,
and again 20 houses have been put down in the local plan.
Interestingly, the Parish Council actually,
have actually said going forward,
they were actually allowed a mix of one, two,
and three bedrooms because actually there's a large,
high proportion of four bedrooms actually
in Marlowe Bottom already.
And actually that would have improved the density piece
and that would have improved the immunity space as well,
because you've got nine four beds in there
along the southern flank.
And that actually would have meant
that you would be left, the right hand flank
would have been less congested
and less on top of each other.
So you could have had the same number of houses,
but actually with better immunity space.
I'm aware you have to look at this as it is now.
Maybe we can put a marker down for going forward
and actually look, let's actually get a better quality mix
whether we can then have a proper discussion
of officers before these things come to committee
and go no actually, when we said we wanted one, two,
and three, we meant one, two, and three,
not a whole bunch of four bed houses.
In terms of the transportation piece,
policy in paragraph 411, it actually says,
we look to improve walking and cycling
to both Bertha and Great Marlow School.
We've got a cycle path partially to Great Marlow School,
and there is a potential of an alternative
off -road piece as well.
And I think I'm disappointed that we haven't looked at doing a proper full on 106 agreement
and a full sill process where we look at the developing infrastructure to support growth.
Because we already had the church have an approval literally in the last three months
for a brand new community centre that could be contributed towards.
And these people will be contributing towards.
So again, that's under policy CP7.
And then in terms of the additional trip generation,
based on what the officer said,
I think I wrote it down correctly,
she said it was number of spaces times
by four stroke six movements per day.
Just using the four movements a day,
that gets us 94 ,900 movements
just from this one application site.
As you well know, Chairman, if you try and get out of Marlowe Bottom Road, you then sit
there for 20 minutes to get past the brewery and vice versa, you go back out of Ragman's
Lane.
So 94 ,000 rooms is not inconsiderable.
And again, I would have asked that we should have had some sort of contribution to the
cumulative effect because if there aren't going to be cycle paths, they're going to
be in their car taking their children to Great Marlowe School back in Marlowe and or into
with Burford School itself.
So in terms of the bit I am surprised about
is in terms of the ICB calculation
that was shown on the previous application
but not this one.
Again, in terms of doctors' surgery,
Marlowe's doctors' surgery has an excess of 40 ,000 patients.
It's the biggest surgery in the whole of the county.
It includes Lourdes, Water, Hamilton, Lane End,
and Marlowe Bottom and the rest.
Adult social care is not talked about.
So I would like to have additional conditions in terms of better quality
design, less density, but then we should have additional requirements in terms of
the CILL and one of the six monies to include ICB, highways in relation to
Braggam's Lane and Miles Bottom Road, cycle paths, schools and community
facilities. The 500 ,000 and 75 ,000 is a drop in the ocean, Chairman. It's not
we're gonna do that much to help and support the community,
which this will be in effect almost to store
the breaks the cameras back.
So yeah, so I'm reluctant to support it
because I don't feel it's done enough
to address the issues that are being outlined.
It's reasonable, but it's not,
we're supposed to go for quality design
and for both existing residents and for future residents.
I don't feel it really does that.
It's like it's okay average, but it's not quality
and exemplar and that's what we're looking to try
and do with this council going forward, Chairman.
So I reluctantly wouldn't want to support this, Chairman.
Thank you.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:04:20
Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:04:22
Thank you.
I mean, because it's already part
of a residential development,
I think it's gonna be very difficult, unfortunately,
to argue that it's sort of cutting into countryside.
So there's not an awful lot of stuff we can do, quite frankly,
in terms of it's a huge plot, which enables
all these houses to be built. And so we
can't seem to be turning that down
under the rules and regulations that are in the book.
So on that basis, as much as I totally understand
the predicament we're in, I think the planning
would support this development from that perspective.
I still have concerns about the infrastructure.
I think what Councillor Collingwood said
about secondary schools, we have to deal outside
of this meeting, because it is an issue.
I think Ragman's Lane, this would be a great opportunity
to look at doing a highways development on it
to make it far better with more pull in spaces
and actually make it safer
because it's got some really, really dangerous bends.
So outside this council, I think I'd want to really push
for a massive improvement because whatever report
comes back that road is not safe
for two cars coming either way.
And you need someone to ring up to say,
I'm gonna be half an hour late for work
while we push one up the hill.
So I think as a council, allowing this kind of application,
there's then an obligation on us to provide decent roads for that development
but I think as it stands where it's we're minded to grant the further
planning obligation I don't think there's anything here that we could
actually turn down given that it is a large plot of residential land for
residential use and under the current guidelines here we are
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:06:22
Councillor Addo.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 2:06:26
Thank you very much.
I just want to say I agree with some of the comments that have been made by Councillor
Collingwood.
But my question is, based, you know, this application and the previous one, is it, can
we make, ask, I don't want to say force, the ICB or the hospital to make comments?
Is that possible?
Because I'm looking at, I can see your face.
Because there is no comment here
that the first application as well, ICD.
So there's gonna be increase in the number of residents.
So it would be good to know what can we do
to support the infrastructure in that area.
Can I just comment on that because it was something we talked about.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:07:25
Councillor, shall we answer that one first and then come back to you.
Let's get the officer to reply to that and then I'll come back to you.
Jenny Ion - 2:07:39
Thank you. I'd like to first go back to something that Councillor Collingwood
said I think we need to address is the traffic generation figures because I
I think he might have slightly misunderstood what I said.
Because I did actually say that traffic generation
is per dwelling, not per parking space,
the figures I quoted.
So roughly, depending on the size of the dwelling,
roughly 46 movements per dwelling, not per parking space.
Which, and even then, I can't see how you get to a figure
of 94 ,000 on 20 dwellings, but there we go.
But in terms of infrastructure,
We have consulted the health authority.
We consulted them in March and in three months they have not responded to us.
We can't force them to respond to us.
We could obviously try and go back to them, but as it is, they have chosen not to.
And I would note that in terms of the previous item, although we initially identified a request for a contribution,
they haven't pursued that for a similar scale to this.
In terms of other facilities, the highways issues, the highway authorities have advised
that there's not sufficient justification given the scale and location of this site
to justify contributions towards off -site highway improvements.
I have looked at, we have gone back to the education authority on primary education.
My understanding was that secondary was covered by CIL.
I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding,
that there was a difference between the way
that secondary and primary education are funded.
And finally, community facilities.
I did go back to the most recent evidence
that we've got on community facility needs, which
is not actually that recent.
It dates back to 2014, the update on the community
facility strategy.
and that identified that in terms of number of facilities
and geographical location of facilities
in the Greater Marlow Ward, which was the assessment area
of the time, that there are numerically more facilities
than they would expect for the population in that area.
There is a slight deficiency in terms of space,
but the recommendation of the strategy was that
that was not causing any particular issues,
and therefore it didn't recommend that further community facilities
were sought in that particular ward at that time.
I recognise that information is now quite old,
but that's the best information that we've got available
to us at this time.
So we haven't required contributions
on any of those matters,
but the only thing we have required contributions on
is the affordable housing element,
which is a policy requirement which is being met.
I think hopefully that's addressed the comments
that you asked, or questions that you asked.
Come on.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:10:31
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Shade Adoh - 2:10:32
Yeah, so despite the fact that the information is old,
does that have any implication?
Is it considered at all?
Despite the fact that it is old information?
Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you're asking.
Can you just speak up slightly as well?
You said the information you have is old,
despite that information.
Does that not affect the recommendation or the decision?
It's the best information or evidence
Jenny Ion - 2:11:00
that we've got at the moment on which to base a judgement as to whether facilities are required.
If you were to justify contributions towards infrastructure you have to have an evidence
base to say that it's necessary. It's got to be reasonably related to the development itself
and proportionate to meet the tests of the CIL regulations. So without any evidence to support
a request for say a community facilities contribution we couldn't require one because
it wouldn't meet those tests.
But if your data is old, what you're relying on,
Cllr Shade Adoh - 2:11:35
the data you're relying on is old, is what you've just said.
And if that is the case, how can you, therefore,
find it easy to make a recommendation on that basis?
Well, in this instance, there hasn't been a significant,
Jenny Ion - 2:11:54
the assessment is based on the number of people
in the assessment area, in the ward area.
If that hasn't significantly changed or the number of facilities available hasn't significantly
changed, there's unlikely to be a change in what is required in terms of community facilities.
If there had been a significant uplift in population, for example, that might have generated
an additional requirement, but I don't believe that to be the case in this particular area.
Councillor Townsend. Thanks.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:12:22
I certainly share some of Councillor Arthur Hewitt's sentiments in that it's
an allocated site for up to 20 houses so that principle is confirmed however I
still think that we need to make sure that this proposal works as best we can
for residents and one of the concerns that I have is about the ICB lack of
I don't think that a lack of response should be treated as the fact that it's
treated as there is no need here and because I think we know as councillors
there is a need for contributions. When we were on the site visit today the
possibility was mentioned of I think did you say the chairman taking that away as
a as a potential condition? I said you could potentially ask for it to be
Jenny Ion - 2:13:15
deferred for further exploration of that particular issue, certainly.
I think there may be some, I can't remember exactly what I said now.
In terms of if you wanted to reach recommendations for just further that,
but to give the chairman, once that issue is, we've had feedback on that,
that could be discussed with the chairman in terms of the way forward
with the applications.
So that would go via the chairman as opposed to coming
back to the committee.
There will potentially be a means of words that we could
devise to allow it to be deferred to allow that issue to
be considered further.
I personally think that would be an important condition and I'd
be interested to hear my colleagues thoughts on that.
I'd like to second that part because I felt that we haven't
really done that.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:14:09
And I think the bit about the secondary education piece you
mentioned earlier on is part of CIL, yet only CIL that we're looking at is affordable housing.
So there's a query there in terms of, well, is it under CIL or not under CIL for secondary
education or not?
So again, those sort of nuanced points, Chairman, where we need that clarification, but we're
happy to leave it under your capable hands to deal with those, have the information come
back, and then hopefully if it does come back, yes, these are requirements, then obviously
they would be, I would guess, be formed part of additional conditions or whatever they
need to be generally whatever that part of that process is but we're happy to
let you deal with a detail afterwards Jim.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:14:53
Anybody, any other Councillor would like to make a comment?
No? So we've exhausted the debate so can I ask for a proposal and seconder for
this with the caveat what Councillor Collingwood and Councillor Townsend have said.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:13
Going with the recommendation with the caveat that Councillor Townshend proposed, I second that
the Chairman and the officers go away to consider and investigate further about the ICB contributions
requirements because looking at the previous application it gave you a set for there's a set
formula we know is based on number of dwellings etc and then also there's a query about the
CIL requirement for secondary schools as well so those two bits were still outstanding but
we'll leave it with the officers and Chairman to deal with whatever they need to deal with in terms
the wording and come back to us with the relevant answers but they'll deal with
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:15:47
it on our behalf if that makes sense. I think that's how I describe it.
I'll let you guys come up with a relevant word you needed to say but I think
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:54
that's where we're trying to articulate to get those items dealt with. So I'd only
ask the Chairman to come back and tell us what the exact wording of that is.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:16:05
Thank you Councillor Collingwood. I'll ask our Legal Services Officer to give us some
and put on that as well.
Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah, it's just a question really
and a point of clarification.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 2:16:17
After the issues regarding the ICB's response
and the CIL in respect of secondary schools,
once that's been investigated,
is the intention for the application
to be delegated to officers to determine?
Is that correct and is it minded to approve?
Yeah.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:16:43
I think it would be to defer to the chairman to approve whether that contribution from
ICB, sorry, in respect of ICB and for secondary education is sufficient.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 2:16:58
And then if the chairman has approved those, then it's delegated to officers to approve
the conditional permission and the section 106.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:17:07
So can I have a proposer and seconder for that please?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:17:15
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:17:18
You have Councillor Townsend, seconder Councillor Conlon.
And all those in agreement, hands up please.
Unanimous.
Thank you.

7 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:17:42
Item 7 is the date of the next meeting which is the 29th of July at 6 .30pm.

8 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

Item agenda 8 is site visit members. Can I have a show of hands who's going to do the
site visits for next time on the 28th of July's site visits.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:18:06
That might clash with strategic sites again, Chairman.
Can we work out exact dates later on Chairman?
Okay, no problem.
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:18:11
Because the thing is that strategic sites
is on the 30th, on 29th, and we're all trying to fit in
strategic site visits all at the same time
on that same week.
No problem.
You have got that time,
so you can ping me an email as well.
Thank you very much to the councillors
for a good conversation.
And thank you to officers for your assistance.
Thank you and have a safe trip home.
Good night.
Mr Leslie Ashton
Democratic Services Officer
Buckinghamshire Council
View profile Mr Leslie Ashton