West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 29 July 2026, 6:30pm

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 29th July 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Imran Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Planning Applications

Share this agenda point

4 PL/25/4603/FA Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, Buckinghamshire HP27 9SF

Share this agenda point

Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Arman Alam
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Arman Alam
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Arman Alam
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Public Speakers
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Michael West
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mr Chris Steuart
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Mr Chris Steuart
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Chris Steuart
Ms. Lucy Bellinger
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs

4 PL/25/4603/FA Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, Buckinghamshire HP27 9SF

Share this agenda point

5 PL/26/02426/FA - 226 Totteridge Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP13 7LF

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Julia Wassell
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Arman Alam
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Mark Turner
Mr Chris Steuart
Cllr Mark Turner
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Maz Hussain
Yee Chung Hui
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Arman Alam
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Alex Collingwood

6 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:00

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the West Buckinghamshire Planning Committee.

I am Councillor Sarfaraj Raja and I'm the chairman for this meeting.

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 be,

have their images captured,

please advise the committee clerk

and we will help sit you somewhere

where you won't be recorded.

The fire exit is located at the back of the chamber.

We aren't having any fire draws,

but if the fire alarm goes,

please follow me outside through the big doors down the stairs and to the left of

the building where we will stand until we've been given the all -clear. Item 1

apologies of absence. Thank you chairman we've received apologies from Councillor

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:01:43

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:47

Addo. Thank you. Agenda item 2 are there any declarations of interest?

2 Declarations of Interest

No? Councillor Sane?

Cllr Imran Hussain - 0:01:57

I declare interest in item agenda 2. I will be I supported the call -in so I will

be walking out. Thank you.

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:02:09

Thank you. Item 3 minutes of the previous meeting held

on Wednesday 1 July 2026. Is everybody happy with the minutes?

Planning Applications

4 PL/25/4603/FA Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, Buckinghamshire HP27 9SF

Thank you. We move on to application agenda item 4 application number PL25 -4603 -FA Chilton

Thame Road, Longwick. I'd like to hand over to Ms Lucy Bellinger who will introduce this

item.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:02:40

Good evening everybody. Can you all hear me okay? Yes, great. Okay. So this is your first

item this evening. Firstly I'll just draw your attention to the update paper which

hopefully everybody has in front of you. Just to draw your attention to the fact

that this application has been subject to a site visit and we've had some late

additional representations received objecting to the application and you can

see the grounds that the issues that those have raised. So I'll just give you

a couple of minutes just to read that through.

Okay. Great. Okay. So just by way of start, just to note that we've had an appeal lodged

against this application. So that's appeal against the non -determination of the scheme.

So as a result, the local planning authority, we're no longer able to determine the application.

So the planning committee, what you're being asked to resolve is what the decision would

have been had we been in a position to still determine it. So this will inform the council's

position in defending the appeal. So moving on to the slides just to give you an introduction

to the site.

Sorry, did you have your hand up?

Yeah, sorry. So as you've indicated, this is an application that's now under appeal.

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:04:32

I'm just trying to understand how it's going to help for us to be able to decide this application

here today.

Do you want me to take that now?

Yeah.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:04:39

So what we've put in front of you is a recommendation,

which is a minded to refuse,

which we often do in the event of an appeal

against non -determination.

That is our professional planning recommendation to you.

It's whether you consider that that is the right reason

for refusal, and it's on that reason

that we will defend the appeal.

Sorry, let me just step in.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:05:06

And under the Constitution, officers do not have delegated authority to proceed with the

minded to decision unless the chair and the chief planning officer agree the minded to

decision.

And in this case, that agreement was unable to be reached, so we're bringing it to the

committee so you can provide a delegation to officers to proceed with the minded to

decision.

Does that make does that make sense?

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:05:36

To some extent but I'm still confused because if we're not if the council isn't going to be in the planning department isn't going to be

making the ultimate decision and it's the

It's going to appeal. So the land the

Is going to be is going to make the decision. I'm just considering what the purpose is of us

scrutinising this

Application in the context of any appeal we always have a position

whether that is there would be a refusal,

and reasons for refusal,

or whether we would be supporting the application.

So even though it is going to pins,

as a local planning authority,

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:06:13

we would always have a position on the application.

Yeah, it's the constitution.

And whatever's decided here by this committee,

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:06:27

or whatever analysis is undertaken, is that going to be taken into consideration?

I'm sorry to dwell on this point, but it seems that the planning department has already indicated

in the report that some negotiations are taking place between the applicant and the council,

and there's likely to be some kind of agreement in any event.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:06:53

Yes, so as part of the appeal, I mean, we'll be straying into the debate, so I need to

for what I'm saying here.

So you will see our recommendation that we've put to you

and the reasons behind that recommendation

and what might happen as the appeal progresses.

Sorry, that's a bit of a coded answer

but I'm worrying about straying into debate.

Councillor Alex Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

As the Chairman of the strategic sites,

I knew have very similar scenarios

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:07:20

where multiple applications will come to us

for non -determination and what sometimes happens,

so there's a couple of applications

that have gone through the process now,

where I've been discussing with the Chief Planning Officer

what the council's position will be,

and therefore those ones aren't going to come

to board the committee because we've agreed

a collective view of what the reasons will be,

or the mind -jitter refusal would have been

for a particular application.

In this case, these have come to the committee

because that hasn't happened.

And therefore we are going to review the report

and then decide what actually the ultimate outcome would be.

But it is quite normal process.

Cheque Councillor Ham.

Councillor Mark Turner.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:08:04

I was just going to add that we may have other reasons

for either refusal or approval.

So it's things that will be presented to the inspector.

Would you like to carry on?

And it's that that will shape knowing how, as officers,

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:08:19

we will then defend the appeal.

Yeah, okay. I appreciate it's will be slightly different you may not have

experiences at committee before but is that okay for a minute? I'll carry on.

Okay, right so just moving on to the slides then please. Right so starting

with an aerial photo so it just gives you an idea of Longwick where the site

is based and we have Princess Risborough to the south and the application site

itself is to the east side of Tame Road and you can see where the site is

outlined in in red there. Next slide please. Closer view in of the

application site. The existing property on the Tame Road known as Chilton is the

house that's going to be demolished and then you've got the application site

then stretching to the rear. And as you can see from that area we've got a

a mixture of what we would call previously developed land

or PDL and also areas of paddock and grazing

and obviously the frontage residential property as well.

Next slide.

Just to give you an idea of some of the photos,

this is the application site itself,

the property known as Chilton on the main road

which will be demolished and where new vehicle access

will be created into the site.

Next slide.

Again, this is still standing on the Tame Road.

Just gives you an idea of the existing properties that we've got along the road there at the

moment.

Next slide.

Bigger view looking back south.

So you've got the hedge there on the left -hand side, which is the application site.

So this is looking south back towards the Princess Risborough direction on the Tame

Road itself.

Next slide. Still standing slightly further to the south but looking north

up the Tame Road and the right -hand side you can just make out one of the barn

like structures, storage sort of structure that's already on the

application site. It's just to the right -hand side of that Leilani hedge

and then the other buildings more to the right -hand side are associated with

Bryant's yard, just to the right -hand side there.

Next slide.

And just another view further up Tame Road,

looking north, just to give you an idea

of sort of the character and appearance

of Tame Road at the moment.

Next slide.

This is just a mixture of a selection of photos

from the application site itself,

so you can see kind of the range of buildings

and structures that are on the previously developed part of the site.

The bottom right photo is the back of Landau hedge which is then the back garden of the

retained property on Chiltern on the Tame Road.

Next slide.

Then moving further into the application site, so top left you have a view looking back towards

the existing properties of Tame Road and then you swing round in a sort of clockwise direction.

So top right is then looking sort of northwest direction and then bottom left is more sort of

north northeast and then swinging back round more sort of south southeast of the application site

itself. So this is obviously the the paddock grazing area of the application site. Next slide.

Just taking account of some more longer distance views, this is taken from the footpath to

the northeast of the site, which is just beyond Maccabee's dog kennels.

So you can see the red sort of line to the bottom of the screen just gives you an idea

of the extent of the application site itself.

Next slide.

Slightly further afield, this is then on Bar Lane,

which is to the north, but looking back

towards the application site.

So it's beyond that hedge that is in the distance.

And next slide.

And then even longer distance views,

so this is about three kilometres away.

This is within the Chiltern National Landscape itself.

This is up on White Leaf Cross.

So this is looking across the extent of Princess Risbrough,

and then Longwick that you can see in the distance

within which the application site is.

Next slide.

So moving on to the actual application drawings.

This is the site layout.

As you can see where the new access point is created,

and what we have is what's known as a perimeter block form,

where the houses are backing on to existing properties

on Tame Road. Then you can see the internal layout and then an area of public open space

to sort of the top right hand corner of this site itself. Next slide.

So this is an aerial with the layout imposed on it and you should have this as part of

your drawing packs as well in front of you. So it just gives you an idea of, you can see

the impression of other sites and development that have happened historically and more recently

in Longwick itself and then the retained Bryant's Yard just to the south of the application

site.

Next slide.

I predict this is fairly large to see on the screen but again you have this drawing in

front of you.

This is just the site layout just in black and white form.

Next slide.

And to give you an idea, we've got some street sections showing, just to give you an idea

of what the buildings look like in terms of their appearance, materials and their scale

and their massing.

So this section is, you can see the yellow line there is looking more or less north,

taking a section across the new access road so you can see where the fence line would

run along the new access road and then the start of new properties as it comes

into the site itself. Next slide. This is then another section but looking the

other side of the access road so more to the sort of the south easterly direction.

Again you can see the retained properties on Tame Road itself and then

the new dwellings how they sit within within the site. Next slide. This is then

And a section of one of the main sort of street within the application site.

Again you can see the two -storey form that we've got of the houses with a mixture of

tile and slate roof, majority brick but also some flint detailing to some of the properties

as well.

And then the final section, next slide, is the outer edge street that then looks onto

the open space.

Again just gives you an idea of the sort of character and appearance and the setting of

the dwellings. Next slide. This is sort of a 3D view just to again give you an

idea of the setting and the layout of the scheme. Next slide.

Okay so the report sets out the broad range of planning issues and the

The development in our opinion would accord with the majority of the development plan

except the spatial policies relating to the location of new homes and this is because

with the exception of the existing house which is being demolished the wider site is beyond

the settlement boundary of Longwick where the development plan does not support new

housing.

And secondly in the absence of a legal agreement the proposal would be contrary to policies

relating to the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure that are

necessary to mitigate the impacts and support the new housing. So as you'll all

be aware the council cannot currently demonstrate a five -year housing land

supply so the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in

the National Planning Policy Framework the MPPF that's engaged. So what this

means in practise is that additional weight must be given to the development's contribution

to the supply of housing and that any policies which are most important for determining the

application such as those relating to the provision and the location of housing and

that's both within the local plan and the neighbourhood plan are considered to be out

of date and as such they have diminished or limited weight

in decision making.

So next slide please.

So the report sets out how the tilted balance

has been applied and the weight that has been attached

to the various harms and benefits of the scheme.

And they are summarised in this slide

but they're also set out in the report.

So the conclusion on the planning balance exercise

is that the significant benefit of the scheme's

contribution to housing land supply

would not be outweighed by the harm of permitting new homes

that wouldn't be supported by necessary infrastructure

and the lack of the provision of affordable housing.

So as we've sort of touched on,

members should note that the applicant

has indicated their willingness

to enter into a legal agreement.

So if a satisfactory agreement is completed

as part of the appeal, then the minded to refuse reason

would in effect fall away,

and the appeal would not be contested.

So in that scenario, we've suggested a list

of planning conditions, which is appended

to the committee report at Appendix C for information.

Final slide, I think.

Yeah.

So the recommendation is minded to refuse,

and that's on the basis of in the absence

of a legal agreement, the development would fail to secure on -site affordable housing

provision and necessary infrastructure to mitigate the impacts arising from the new

homes. Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:19:03

Thank you. We have public speaking on this item. You will hear from them shortly. I have

used my discretion as chairman to allow the local MP, his own three minutes, to speak.

I'll read out the names of who I have listed to speak.

Councillor Matthew Walsh, Councillor Apple Durham, Greg Smith MP, Mr Quilts, Mr Kenlar

and Ms Addison.

So I'll take Councillor Matt Walsh first.

Yeah, three.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:19:50

Longwick has already accepted an exceptional amount of housing growth.

The neighbourhood plan provided for over 300 additional homes

and identified six sites where that growth should take place

and allowed the village to effectively double in size.

This application seeks another 57 houses on a site that is predominantly greenfield,

outside the defined settlement boundary and not allocated for housing.

I recognise the difficult position created by the Council's inadequate housing land supply

and the resulting tilted balance, but a failure to maintain an adequate supply of housing should

not mean that every field adjoining a village becomes acceptable for development.

Longwick is classified as a Tier 4 settlement.

The officer's report itself acknowledges that the village has limited public transport and

no GP surgery.

It accepts that services beyond the village, including healthcare, secondary education,

larger stops and the railway station are most likely accessed by car.

Indeed, the report acknowledges that the existing bus service does not meet the council's own

definition of a high quality accessible service.

Previous developments were expected to support improvements,

yet residents have seen very little practical change.

The report concludes that highways, drainage,

and infrastructure issues can be addressed

through conditions and financial contributions.

However, a financial contribution is not the same

as an additional GP appointment, an available school place,

a reliable bus service, or an upgraded sewer.

Residents have already experienced heavy traffic,

limited pedestrian provision and serious concerns about drainage and sewer

flooding the cumulative effects of development must be considered not

simply the impact of these 57 homes in isolation. There is also the important

issue of confidence in the planning system. Residents participated

constructively in preparing a neighbourhood plan. They did not oppose development

they agreed where substantial development should take place. In terms

of the neighbourhood Longwick neighbourhood plan and its age we have to consider that the neighbourhood

plan has to align with the Buckinghamshire local plan and in the first term of Buckinghamshire

council they did not publish a final revised local plan. The council currently lacks a five -year

housing supply but that does not remove the neighbourhood plan or make the neighbourhood plan

irrelevant. The application is outside the settlement boundary predominantly Greenfield

and contrary to the agreed spatial strategy,

I therefore ask the committee to give proper weight

to the cumulative impact upon Longwick

and to resolve that the Planning Commission

should be refused.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Do committee members have any points of clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:22:41

No?

Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councillor Walsh, you talked about it being

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:22:50

outside the settlement.

and I think it's the outside the allocated.

Can you just explain that,

just clarify that a bit better in terms of the,

I think I understood, but I wasn't 100 % sure.

Based on the various different plans that go out front,

I was trying to work out what that meant, sorry.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:23:09

So if you look at the application site

and the actual settlement of Longwick,

not Longwick coming on the parish council,

the development goes past

the existing settlement boundary for Longwick.

and it is not included in any of the proposed neighbourhood plan or the existing neighbourhood

plan. I also think it's important Councillor Collingwood to remember that even in the published

Regulation 19 this site is not allocated for housing development either. So when we talk

about limited weight in existing we also have to accept that the proposed new local plan

has some ablit small weight and this site again is not allocated. It's never been allocated

any plans for long week at all.

Thank you Mr. Billinger.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:24:00

Yeah just wanted to come back clarification.

and we should do that at technical questions.

This is points of clarification.

No problem.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:24:18

Moving on to Council, Rolf van Appendron.

Good evening.

Public Speaker - 0:24:27

Sorry, were there any more questions?

I've been told of Councillor Arthur Hewitt.

Cllr Michael West - 0:24:37

Yes, we note that the case officers recommendation is apt to to reject this

application. What is it exactly you are proposing that it is rejected under any

circumstances? Yes, thank you Councillor for that excellent question. Yes, I'm

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:24:56

asking that on the basis of the points that I've outlined that I believe my

fellow residents will outline that we're asking for the Planning Committee to

completely reject the application in preparation for the appeal hearing. Thank

you. Can I ask councillors to speak into the mic because we can't hear what

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:25:15

you're asking and what you're saying so it'd be really good if you can speak

into the mic. Councillor Arthur Hewitt. Thank you I'd just like to ask the

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:25:25

Councillor, on here Thames Water has said

there is no reason to refuse it on drainage issues.

From your experience, what are the drainage issues?

Because it seems to be a complete

sort of contradiction I'm hearing,

and I'd like to know from you

in terms of what you have to represent.

Thank you, Councillor, for that question.

So with regards to the issues with Thames Water,

I can assure you there are significant issues already

with the developments that Longwick has faced.

We have tankers in there seven times a day collecting raw sewage.

We have a pumping station that continues to struggle with the existing housing stock that

we have.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:26:08

And I think in all honesty, if you look across planning applications across the whole of

Buckinghamshire, you'll regularly see Thames Water say that it's not an issue.

And then anybody that drives the roads in Buckinghamshire and beyond right now knows

that Thames Water has multiple issues.

So with no disrespect to Thames Water, I wouldn't really trust what they say in this application.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:26:30

Any more questions for clarification? No? Thank you. Moving on to Councillor Ralph van

Public Speaker - 0:26:38

Appledorn. Yes, good evening. I'm Ralph van Appledorn

of the Longwick -cum -Ilmer parish council and I attended this meeting in order to object

to planning application PL25 -4603 from Nicholas King Homes, which we believe is purely speculative.

There have been three major housing developments since the neighbourhood plan for Longwick

Com Ilmer was adopted in March 2018. The plan accepted specific areas that were suitable

for development within the established settlement boundary. The specific site allocations within

the plan were L1 to L6 and this application is none of those sites and is therefore sufficient

grounds for a refusal. After the development of the specific sites, Longwick doubled in

size by an additional 300 homes, and the plan has another seven years to run to 2033. The

applicant canvassed a small number of potential neighbours to seek views of the proposed development.

The responses recorded seemed very few and it has been suggested that if the developer

were to explain his proposals to a wider community they would have had a more

informed view of what was to come. The proposed development will exit onto the

A4129 which is the Tame Road that runs through the village. It's

extremely busy with a large proportion of heavy trucks servicing construction

sites in the area, HS2, data centre and housing developments in Haddam. Although

Although there is a 30 mph speed limit through the village, this is not always adhered to.

The Case Officer's report states that access to the village school and the village hall

that houses the playgroup from the proposed development site will be available via pavements

with an existing signalised crossing.

The crossing point is north of the access point to the village hall and the shortest

pedestrian route to the school. A new crossing point would be needed closer to the exit of

the new development to provide a safe crossing for parents and children. Children attending

senior schools in the area are picked up and dropped off at the top of Chestnut Way at

the junction with the A4129, which is the Tame Road, and would also require a safe crossing

point. The Parish Council has been trying for years to obtain more crossing points of

this busy road but without success. The applicant states that Longwick is

considered a sustainable location for housing development with public

transport links to larger settlements. The existing bus services are very

limited and although the applicant has stated that they would financially

contribute to improve the service this was also promised by all three previous

developers. Thank you, Chancellor. Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:29:46

Are there any points of clarification members?

Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:29:53

Just understanding when the gentleman talked about the crossing points for I think the

primary and secondary school just whereabouts would that have to be I was

just trying to work out because I was trying to work out exactly where that

might be in relation to the various different plans you got just double checking that.

Near the entrance to the site.

So your request is if this went through, then in your mind is the local parish council that

the most suitable location for that safe crossing would be near the actual site itself then?

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more points of clarification?

No?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:30:51

Then we move on to Mr. Greg Smith, MP for mid Buckinghamshire.

Over to you.

You have three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:30:59

Thank you, Chairman, and good evening, Councillors.

This application is purely speculative and should be outrightly refused.

Longwick has already surpassed the level of development laid out in the current

Wickham local plan and the Longwick neighbourhood plan. The scale of this

proposed development is excessive and inconsistent with those policies. It's

not even as Councillor Walsh said earlier in the emerging new Buckinghamshire

plan either. To grant permission would undermine the plan led system and set a

dangerous precedent for other speculative development. The cumulative

impact among other recent and pending developments would have on the village

cannot be understated. Longwick housing growth has already exceeded its plan

numbers. There are existing pressures on local services and utilities. Water,

sewage, tankers taking sewage away today, let alone if this development goes ahead.

Electricity, GP surgeries, schools. I could go on and on and on. There are no formal

transport links and the nearest train station I've worked out is around two

miles away from this development, nearly a 50 -minute walk and along a rural road that has no footpath for the large part.

That is not sustainable. This is the wrong development in the wrong place.

This application is clearly premised on

extending urban sprawl into the open countryside by tacking development onto the existing village boundary and engulfing agricultural land.

The loss of agricultural land is truly unacceptable,

particularly given the push to intensify national food

security against a backdrop of global insecurity.

I also have concerns on the environmental impact,

the displacement of wildlife, and the reduction

in biodiversity.

Then there are the extremely serious highways impacts

to be considered.

Traffic levels and speeds through the village are

already a major issue.

knock on any door and virtually every resident will tell you that. Adding

hundreds and more and more vehicles either accessing or leaving the

development onto an extremely busy road by way of the proposed access

would create a serious serious hazard. Road safety in Longwick is

regularly raised with me as the local MP and matters are only getting worse with

more and more unwanted development. So I urge this committee not to be swayed by

anti -local talk of having to grant permission because of white old dick tats about five -year

housing supply. This is a bad application and a bad application is still a bad application

and I urge you all to refuse it.

Any points of clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:33:59

Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:34:05

Thank you, Greg Smith MP. Just to clarify, you said there would probably be a 50 -minute

walk to the train station and did you say that the there were very few footpaths available

to do that unless I guess you're going to hike across country or hike across the fields I guess

as soon as you might get there but I guess I just want double cheque in my mind since the location.

Public Speaker - 0:34:32

Yeah thank you Councillor in order to walk from Longwick to Princes -Risborough train station now

Yes, there are some footpaths through Longwick itself,

but once you go under the railway bridge

and you turn left down towards Princes Risborough,

there are no footpaths along a 60 mile per hour

national speed limit country lane.

I know this because I once looked at buying a house

in Longwick and came to the view that that was not a walk

I particularly wanted to do on a daily basis

on my treks to the train station to go into Westminster.

Longwick is a beautiful village,

but that walk is not a sustainable walk.

And I'm actually not sure there is a public footpath

across fields that would get you all the way,

all the way to Princes -Risborough train station,

a train station that actually is already also

in its own right relatively over capacity

and can't cope with rush hour peaks now,

let alone if more residents were to come in

and want to use those services

either to Marylebone or up to Birmingham.

Any other points for clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:35:38

No, thank you moving on to three objectives

Public Speaker - 0:35:46

You have three minutes to share between you so a minute each if you want to prefer it like that. So, mr

Quelch, do you want to start?

Public Speakers - 0:35:53

Good evening chairman and members we live directly adjacent to the proposed site

Myself and my neighbours all have concerns in the following areas

Major loss of privacy. Windows from those houses that look straight into our bedrooms, bathrooms, lounge and kitchens and overlook our gardens.

Our bathroom glass is clear, having never been overlooked before.

Noise pollution and disturbance. 57 homes built behind our gardens will create noise pollution as never previously experienced.

Wildlife. Many types of wildlife visit our gardens frequently. This wildlife will simply never return.

Security and crime. The plan puts narrow and the alleys between our gardens and

the new gardens. This presents a risk of anti -shosic behaviour and crime as

highlighted by section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Your own crime

prevention design advisor is still not satisfied about those rear access routes.

No signed condition will remove any alleyway. Please add loss of privacy and

layout security to your reasons for refusal.

Road safety and layout. One access point for 57 homes and 165 parking spaces is not sufficient

and there's no flow to the layout which will cause congestion. A new junction soon after

where the limit reduces from 40 also presents safety risks. The proposed junction is small

and visibility is poor. There's no pedestrian crossing proposed on the plan on a road where

children walk to school.

Flooding, surface water drainage is very poor

and our gardens frequently flood.

Despite having a drain outside my driveway,

it floods regularly.

Even the applicant's own drainage tests were abandoned

due to showing very poor drainage.

The LLFA still has unanswered questions

and as the appeal is now lodged,

those questions may never be answered.

Sewers, Thames Water uses tankers every day

to take sewage out of the village

and it is known that surface water

already gets into the found network.

Please add the drainage evidence and road safety to your reasons for refusal.

Health care. Longwick has no doctor or dentist and the Integrated Care Board has already objected,

confirming that the nearest surgeries cannot take any more patients.

Schools and transport. Longwick Primary School only takes four to eleven year olds and is not taking further admissions,

so children would need to be taken to schools out of the area.

The Planning Office's report confirms that the bus service already doesn't meet public policy standards, so yet more car journeys will be needed.

Sustainability. Not enough car charging points are provided for 57 new homes, and the proposal offers nothing in terms of renewed energy.

A precedent has been set. Schemes of this scale have previously been refused elsewhere in Longwick and dismissed on appeal based on character and appearance alone.

A refusal resting on the legal agreement alone leaves the appeal uncontested.

So we ask you to add reasons that a simple signature cannot ignore.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:39:01

Can I remind members of the public to control themselves?

Any points of clarification?

No?

Thank you.

We move on to technical questions for officers.

Any committee members?

Oh, sorry, I've missed the agent now.

Sorry, Mr. Duvall, you have three minutes to speak.

Good evening, Chairman, can you hear me okay?

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:39:34

Good evening, Chair and members of Planning Committee.

My name is Alan Duvall, I'm Director at Welsingham Planning

speaking on behalf of the applicant Nicholas King Homes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in

support of this full planning application for 57 new high quality homes. Nicholas King Homes is a

traditional house building company based locally in Beaconsfield with extensive experience delivering

hundreds of new homes across Buckinghamshire over the last 35 years. There is a significant

and acute need for additional homes within the west area of Buckinghamshire and across

Buckinghamshire as a whole with a housing land supply shortfall in all areas of the county.

The application before you will deliver 57 new homes and contribute to this housing land supply

shortfall. 20 % of the application site is located on previously developed land.

The remainder of the site relates extremely well to the existing settlement providing a logical

and sustainable extension. Your officers consider the site would not project beyond the established

north -eastern extent of existing built development.

A specialist team of consultants have worked

with council officers in the development of the scheme,

engaging in pre -application discussions and consultation

in advance of the submission of the application.

We have worked diligently to ensure that the proposals

comply with the majority of relevant policies

within the adopted Wickham local plan

and the long -wicked Cumberland neighbourhood plan.

The proposals will deliver an attractive

and well -designed form of development. They will also meet the requirements of

all technical considerations including highways access, ecology, arboriculture,

landscape, drainage, flooding, noise, archaeology and sustainability. The

outcome of this work has resulted in office confirming that there are no

technical reasons to not support planning permission being granted. The

development will deliver a number of benefits which carry substantial and

significant weight in the planning balance. These include the provision of 57 much needed new homes

including 27 on -site affordable homes, development in a sustainable location for the number of new

homes proposed, economic benefits both through the construction period and through additional

residence expenditure within the local economy, creation of on -site public open space including

play space in a parkland area for both new and existing residents, significant tree and hedgerow planting,

and a substantial biodiversity net gain of 33%, which is well in excess of the 10 % required by statutory legislation.

The proposal will also include sustainable design principles within the dwellings construction,

such as renewable energy technologies such as solar thermal panels, photovoltaic panels

and air source heat pumps.

Thank you, thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:42:35

Any points of clarification from members?

Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:42:42

The applicant's right of agency suggested that there would be relevant solar photovoltaic.

The applicant just talked about that they would be providing solar voltaic solar panels

basically on the roofs but based on what the objectives told us that that wasn't going

to be the case so can just want to explain if are they producing the relevant fossil

voltaic or not for the voltaic just so we can clarify what is or isn't being offered

and the car charging bit.

Would the agent like to respond?

Public Speaker - 0:43:20

As I said, yes, that is the case the proposal will provide photovoltaic panels

The car and EV car charging bit sorry

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:43:32

Yes, correct

Public Speaker - 0:43:37

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:43:40

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:43:43

Thank You, I assume you're saying this we could put in in the agreement if you do make a legal agreement

Public Speaker - 0:43:51

Normally, I believe that would be covered by a planning condition and that would be

the usual approach to securing such design features in dwellings.

Thank you.

Any more points for clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:44:04

Thank you.

Now we move on to technical questions for officers.

Any committee members?

Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:44:18

I'm not sure where we go with this question, but I do have a concern that there seems to

be evidence that the sewage and drainage is not sufficient.

And what we can do to make sure as a council that there's some kind of, I don't know, independent

sort of review or a second ask from Thames Water specifically because it's obviously

going to land with us if houses are built and then there is flooding and

there is drainage and sewage issues. So I don't know where we go from there but

there seems to be a complete contradiction that worries me and that

we're taking the word of a company over lived experience so I just really want

to raise that so you can tell me what's relevant and what isn't. I'm not sure

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:45:07

there's an easy answer to that question but in the in the kind of planning remit

and what obviously you guys are here to determine is we obviously consult Thames Water in this

instance as a statutory consultee on this planning application and their advice back

to us is that the local sewer can accommodate this development.

we don't have any means to independently review that

because that's their area of expertise,

they are the local water body.

What we do know in this instance is that at the moment,

particularly the issue in Longwick as there is elsewhere,

is that quite often surface water ends up going

into the existing sewer system.

So when we get heavy rain, we know we can get a lot

of discharge of then the sewer system overflowing

as a consequence of heavy rain.

Now this application would have a new connexion

so that any surface water arising from this development

would no longer go in, wouldn't go into the sewer system.

It would go into a separate surface water drainage system.

So in itself, it would not put greater pressure

on the existing sewer system in terms of surface water.

Councillor Mark Turtendorf.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:46:41

I just wanted to ask about policies like DM44

and the protection of greenfield sites,

because clearly if 20 % of it is previously developed land,

then you could understand that being developed.

but to put in green fields which are perhaps outside of the boundary seems a

reason for refusal unless there are specific reasons and I think similarly

the the local plan that as was pointed out that there's 300 houses which is

their development and always almost doubled the size of Longwick again it

It seems to me that would the local plan not carry significant weight and be a reason if

it is, it's not a reason for refusal, but I would have thought that would have been

something of significant weight if that is again something that should be considered.

I'm just wondering, it doesn't seem to be that much mentioned, certainly the greenfield

site in the officer's report.

Wonder if you could explain.

Did you say DM44?

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:47:51

Yeah, let me just give me a moment just to read it.

There'll be one second.

That is the relevant policy.

Can members raise their hands who wanted to speak?

So, Arman, anybody else?

So I think the issue with DM44 is, as we have, because we're in the tilted balance scenario,

because that policy is in effect, deals with and restricts where housing is and isn't acceptable,

it's therefore has limited weight attached to it because of the absence of a five -year

housing land supply. So it's an element of I suppose the spatial strategy aspect

again as I've covered in the report. So because that is restricting where

housing is and isn't acceptable the way we can attach to that is very very

limited because it is in fact stopping us meet that housing land supply need.

even in connexion with the neighbourhood plan?

Yes, so the neighbourhood plan,

similar to the local plan,

is still the relevant form as part of the development plan.

So both of those plans are part of the development plan,

but they both have limited weight in decision making

because of our lack of housing land supply

and relation to the neighbourhood plan.

It's eight years old.

The test in the MPPF, there's two tests.

One is about whether it has met the numbers identified

in the local plan, which the Longwick neighbourhood plan

did do.

But the other test is that it's less,

it's five years or you're younger.

And in the case of the Longwick plan,

it's eight years old now.

So we unfortunately, it is still a consideration,

but we have to attach limited weight to it.

And I appreciate it's a very frustrating situation,

but it all comes down to the fact that we don't have

five -year housing land supply.

So that puts at real risk any policies

that are relating to the location

and the spatial location of new housing.

Those are all very much tempered

and reduced in their weight and importance

when it comes to decision -making

and hence why it makes us very difficult

to defend speculative applications.

So the key really is to get in place the new Bucks local plan as soon as possible because

at that stage we will then be able to demonstrate that we have five year housing land supply.

Can I just underline that?

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:51:00

I mean we've heard public speakers say Longwick has taken all of its housing and we shouldn't

take any more.

But in a planning argument where you're working with the planning legislation that we've got,

that can't be our starting point.

We can't make that argument because it won't be successful

at appeal and we can't operate like that.

We need housing.

A lot of housing is speculative.

Some is allocated.

Some speculative unallocated sites

and some is just speculative like this.

But there's nothing inherently wrong

with speculative development.

We have to look at it against the policies

and weigh the policies properly.

We haven't got up -to -date policies for housing,

and we haven't got a five -year supply.

So that means when sites come along like this,

we have to look at the benefits and the harms,

but the scales are weighed in favour of the housing.

Thank you.

Councillor Mohamed Fias.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:52:05

I've got a couple of questions.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 0:52:09

Who will be legally responsible for maintaining the swales and sustainable drainage features?

And whose safeguards are in place should that maintenance fail?

Second question is, sorry, my second question, has the council considered the consequences

for neighbouring properties if the drainage system does not perform as designed.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:52:44

So taking your first question, on a scheme of this nature, we would expect a management

company to be set up by the house builder and they would be responsible for the maintenance

and the monitoring and the management

of the drainage systems and also other things on site

like the open space.

And we would have those clauses written

into a legal agreement.

So if there is any breach of that legal agreement,

then we can pursue that through the courts.

Could you just repeat your second question?

Was it about if the drainage failed,

the implications for the neighbours?

Yeah, well, we would hope that would not happen

because if the management company

are doing their job correctly

in terms of maintaining and managing the SUD system,

then that shouldn't be an eventuality.

Councillor Mike West.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:53:44

Cllr Michael West - 0:53:50

Thank you, Chair.

There have been two suggestions put forward by local councillors tonight

regarding sustainable transport and both I think eminently sensible suggestions.

One is for a pedestrian crossing, the other one is for a footway to Prince's

Risborough railway station. Do we feel that in your recommendation you are

pursuing those two adequately,

or pursuing sustainable transport adequately.

The second thing which always alarms me,

in an instant like this,

you've just used the phrase, we would expect.

The appellant says, the appellant has indicated

and they intend to enter into a legal agreement.

But yet again, here we are as a committee,

faced with what we would like to happen.

It's like a wish list.

There is no guarantee that this will happen.

And what we must get around to is a situation

where things are decided before they even come to committee.

So all the facts are in front of us.

We've been asked to approve something which,

I think you've done a wonderful job actually so far.

but there is detail that isn't in there and cannot be put in there at this point.

I'll take those in reverse if that's okay, so your last question first.

We're in a slightly tricky situation here because obviously we have an appeal against non -determination,

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:55:36

so in effect our hands are tied.

Once we get that appeal in, all we have to do is just submit our evidence to the planning

inspector, best defend our case, and we don't keep discussing items with the other side.

They put their evidence in and we put our evidence in, but part of that evidence is

the legal agreement as part of the appeal. I probably regret using the word expect. We

within the draught 106 and we get that on all major applications and smaller applications

as well.

So and then back to the first question about the pedestrian crossing. I was trying to point

it out on the aerial but I'm not sure my sight is good enough but I don't know how well you

can see that blue star dot to the left hand side of the Tame Road. I think the crossing

is nearer that way at the moment and there are footways on both sides of the Tame Road

so you can come out of the application site, head up towards the school and the post office

and the village shop. So that, I mean it's a matter of, I don't know, it might be 100

of metres if that to the crossing.

So for a scheme of this size of 57 homes,

both in planning and highway terms,

another pedestrian crossing of the Tame Road

is not justified and we don't think we could,

well, we couldn't justify or ask for that

in planning terms of this scheme

because the existing crossing is sufficient

to serve these new homes.

And the access to Princess Risborough, yes there is no,

once you get out of Longwick Village,

there is no footway along what I think is probably

the Summerlees Road, then heading back to the station

and the town centre.

There is a slightly more convoluted route

along the Phoenix Trail for cycling,

but that's very more long -winded.

and the Summerleas Road is 60 miles an hour at the moment.

But I think longer term, you just need to be mindful

of what we have planned, both in the current local plan

and the next local plan for Princess Risbrough.

So in terms of the expansion area,

as part of that, there is requirements within policy

for a lot of new footway, cycleways to be delivered

as part of those homes.

So as and when that allocation comes forward,

certainly the connexions both within Princess Risbrough

and to Longwick would improve.

But for a scheme of 57,

we feel that the kind of footway,

cycleway connexions we've got at the moment

just within the village are sufficient.

And we would be struggling to justify

that complete new footway all the way along the Summerley's Road, simply off 57 homes.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:59:03

Councillor Arthur Hewitt, did you have your hands up?

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:59:04

Okay if you didn't.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:59:10

Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:59:14

Thank you Chairman. I'm going to probably say what my two landed colleagues next to me are about to say.

The officers have always told us the future is uncertain and you have to look at the application

and its merits as it stands today, not what might or might not come forward potentially

in future plans with future allocations.

So therefore, no offence Mrs Bellinger and Mr Stewart, you have always told us you have

to look at its merits as it is today and the circumstances as it is today, but what future

developments might bring forward in terms of footpaths etc.

It may not be the case that it could pay for the whole of a new crossing and a new

footway but I would expect a final contribution of some form in terms of a cycle path and or

whatever it might be to the local primary school and to the local secondary school.

So you would because 57 wouldn't be wouldn't be justified but I know that but the point is

there would be a part in the condition piece,

there would normally be a piece that says

that the development must,

there's a calculation that works out

and I'm surprised highways aren't actually here

and maybe a reference chairman next time,

highway should be here

because there are a number of issues I've got with highways

which I'm not sure the officers can answer me tonight

but I would say we have to include

within our reasons for refusal

that actually they would have be a calculation

where they would have to contribute

towards future development of cycle path

and for both primary and secondary,

in a financial contribution with a calculation,

because there's a set calculation you get to do.

Because obviously I do that with the strategic site piece,

so therefore I know there is a standard calculation.

Separately from that, now, I know you said

we have limited weight from certain points,

but the point I heard earlier was that

in terms of the Regulation 19 that was published this week,

or the 23rd to be precise,

this site was not allocated to one of the 90 ,000 homes.

So I'm sorry, we need to clarify that

and say that in our submission,

this site was not part of that 90 ,000 homes.

We've found a place for 90 ,000 homes.

And this is not one of them.

So I'm sorry, fundamentally, this is the wrong location,

the wrong site and the wrong location.

Because we've managed to find multiple sites

across multiple villages, towns, and whatever

across the whole of the county,

and this isn't one of them.

And we've done a full survey within your planning team

and then planning policy team said,

this isn't one of them.

So I'm sorry, as part of our defence, I'm sorry,

that's our start point.

We've just done Reg M -19, it's been published.

This is not a site within Reg 19,

one of the 90 ,000 homes, right?

So that's your start point, okay?

You then go on to the access piece in terms of highways.

So one access, the general rule of thumb is 50 houses

is one access, and for 50 houses,

you should normally get two accesses.

I then looked at the flow of this, it doesn't flow.

So therefore, fundamentally,

there's a problem with your highways.

You're making a statement, Councillor Collingwood.

Is there a question, a technical question you need to ask?

So why is the highways not here?

Why are they suggesting it's okay?

Because fundamentally, it fails.

So therefore I don't get the report because I can put holes in this and

therefore because he's not here my suggestion you have to add it in because

he's not here because you know if I can tell you clearly it's gonna fail and

the highwayman's not here to answer my questions.

Shall we get the officers to answer that?

Okay.

Thank you.

There's other things I want to talk about but yeah.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:02:54

I'll take the local plan aspect first.

So at the moment we still, well we will always have

to determine planning applications in accordance

with the development plan.

So that's in the regs 38 .6 of the Times Country Planning Act

as you're well aware of.

And the development plan at the moment is obviously

the former Wickham district local plan

and in this case the Longwick neighbourhood plan.

The Reg 19, so the publication of the new Bucks local plan, is a material consideration,

but because of the stage that it's at in the plan making process, it legally has very limited weight,

because all we have done is published our intention, so that plan will be submitted to the inspector.

We don't know what kind of objections

we're going to get to policies.

People might promote other sites to us.

They might challenge the housing numbers,

the soundness, you know, there's a whole host of aspects

and the deliverability aspects.

So we have had regard to the fact that this site

hasn't been suggested in the emerging Bucks local plan,

but we still can only attach very limited weight to that.

So it still ultimately remains a speculative application

that we unfortunately have to determine

in the time of the suspected application

and we don't have a housing land,

five -year housing land supply.

So the starting point remains the current development plan.

We've had legal opinion and advice on that

and it's correct that we can only attach

very limited weight to the new local plan.

We will certainly identify that to the inspector

as part of our planning statement,

but he would equally have to say very limited weight

to the fact because it still remains a speculative

application and we don't have a five year housing

land supply in either scenario.

Thank you for that clarification,

because my concern was we weren't even mentioning

the fact that I, with our submission,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:08

we weren't even mentioning the fact that actually

we did ask Reg 19 and it isn't part of our

so my concern was it wasn't even mentioned,

if that makes sense.

So I mean, it's not in the report,

obviously this report was written before so you know maybe we could have put it in

update but I think obviously all members are aware that we published the local

plan last Thursday the publication version that will then go to the

inspector before the end of this this year

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:05:36

the highways questions and so yeah highways development management aren't

on here if you if you have questions about highways fire the matters and we

we'll see if we can take them.

It depends how specific they are.

We didn't feel that it was necessary

to have them this evening,

given the resolution and where we are

and the fact that we have an appeal.

Obviously that's a matter of opinion,

but we felt it wasn't necessary

to have them here this evening.

Chairman, can I, I think Councillor Collingwood

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:06:12

was asking why is there any one access to this site.

As you know, I'm not a highway officer either.

But a site of this scale would be quite acceptable with one access.

There are numerous cul -de -sac developments of this scale.

There isn't a highway policy that I'm aware of that says this scale of development would

need two accesses.

In fact, we see much larger development with one access as well.

So there's no basis to reject this scheme on them,

because it's only got one access in and one access out.

And as I say, you'll all know of cul -de -sacs

that have milling houses in them

that are just served off one access.

Yeah, and just the only other thing to add,

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:07:08

I mean there are some of the other schemes

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:07:11

that we've already seen happen in Longwick or Rosimba.

layout as well. There's a site off.

Just wondering if you can see it. Yeah, just to the bottom sort of left -hand side to the back of recreation ground

that's Boxer Barn Road, and that is about 160 homes and that has one route

in and out as well off that.

Yeah, and I would say that that was an appeal decision as well.

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:07:39

We didn't fight it on one one access in and out, but that was an appealing inspector.

great mission for that ten years ago. My last point Jeremy, the question was about

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:07:49

loss of privacy. I couldn't work out from in our update whether that was and again

with the security and crime piece looks like the Thames Valley crime

person still isn't happy anyway but I couldn't work out from the update

whether the loss of privacy piece in the plot 9 to 16 is that our officers

assessment or was that just an objective submission? I wasn't quite clear from our update which

way around that was in terms of technicals.

Sorry I'm slightly struggling to hear so I'm just going to repeat back what I think.

On the update bit, the first bit talks about loss of privacy plot 9 to 16. What I couldn't

work out was whether that was just an objective or whether that had been assessed or whether

that was a valid reason for refusal if you said to me because that did appear

to they did be looking at the site it does appear to have an impact but it

wasn't clear they just shoved in but I had chance to assess it or what the

situation is. So the update lists more recent comments that we've had in from

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:08:55

residents raising their objections so one of their objections is that they

they consider that they will suffer a loss of privacy,

particularly from plots nine to 16.

So in that sense of privacy, they're meaning overlooking.

So in terms of back -to -back distance

and how they will feel,

whether their residential amenities is safeguarded or not.

Okay.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:09:24

Yeah, so we have covered that off within the report.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:09:30

So as you'll be aware, we have our residential design guidance and that suggests a minimum

back to back distance of 25 metres. In this instance we're achieving 30 metres between

that run of properties 9 to 16, how they then back on to the existing retained properties

still on the Tame Road. I have a number of speakers.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:10:01

is cancer Harris cancer Turner counsellor West is there anybody else?

I think I'll draw cancer.

These are all technical questions. I'll take it. Yeah. This is not a debate.

Okay. And after cancer almond,

I will open the debate because this is running on a little bit cancer Harris.

Thanks very much. Um,

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:10:27

I just want to reiterate that we judge each and every application on its on its

on its own grounds and having spoken to officers regarding the expansion of

Prince's Riserets for ten years down the line so if those people expect to walk

for ten years along somebody's lane I don't agree with that I'd love to move

on to the debate and see if it's possible please.

Thank you Councillor Turner.

Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:10:51

I mean it's clear that if it weren't for the S106 it would appear that the

planning authority are in favour of the application and had they produced an S106

perhaps we wouldn't be here but I consider that firstly the S106 I'm

guessing is a negotiating thing after the after the inspectors has made his

recommendation. Is that correct? And the other question as well is just the

fact that I think that there are still things that are of opinion and

in terms of weight because I still think that the settlement and the fact that

it's outside the proposed or it's outside the settlement boundary seem to

to be quite weighty in a village that has already doubled in size.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:11:52

Okay, so in terms of the section 106, the appeal process, this is likely to be determined

under the written representations process and when all of the information, when we have

the deadline, the section 106 will need to go to the planning

expectorate within those appeal timetable deadlines.

So that is before the inspector will make a decision

on the application because obviously that will have quite

a bearing on their decision.

Because if they're not provided with that league agreement,

then the inspector has to consider,

is the scheme acceptable in planning terms

in the absence of all of that infrastructure

being legally secured.

So it will happen before the inspector makes

their own decision.

But yes, we have to sort of open discussions,

start discussions on that as part of the appeal

preparation work and as part of our evidence

and the appellant's evidence as well.

And sorry, I was just gonna ask as well.

So does that, would the S -106 be robust

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:12:59

or is it the case that because the council

will have to be seen to be acting reasonably,

but it would lessen the impact of the S106.

Sorry, can you say that again?

Well, one of the reasons of losing appeals

is if the Council are not acting reasonably,

which I'm slightly concerned

that may make the S106 less robust.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:13:24

I think we would be acting unreasonably

if we weren't entering into those discussions

with the other side which we are having to do already.

But the schedules and the obligations would be drafted

just as we would for any other application.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:13:39

The agreement would not be less robust

because we are in appeal, yeah.

So will the clauses that we would always expect to be in,

will be in this agreement?

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:13:50

And if they're not, we will be saying that

in our appeal statement and we'll be saying

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:13:56

the inspector throw this out because it doesn't meet the requirements of our

policies which then feed into what we want in the 106. So we have a basis for

every item in the 106 has a policy basis behind it and complies with the

regulations, the national regulations. So you know we've still got a strong

bargaining position as it were, a strong negotiating position and we're not

going to sell the council short because there's an appeal.

And then on the question of weight, going back to particularly about the fact it's outside

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:14:35

of the settlement boundary, if I've said in the slide in the report, we have to attach

limited weight to that conflict and that is consistent with how we're applying that weight

to other applications across Bucks.

And that also reflects other appeal decisions

that we've had that are a material consideration.

So inspectors nationally will also say

you have to attach limited weight

when you have a spatial conflict with a development plan

in the absence of a five -year housing land supply.

So although there may be a,

people might want to give it more weight,

I would say we would not be on a confident footing

if we gave it any other weight,

given what other inspectors have said,

and to keep a consistent approach

with decision making across the county.

Moving on to Councillor Arthur Hewitt.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:15:35

Thank you.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:15:36

Yeah, I just want to ask,

with the alleyways that was brought up

about the fact that the alleyways are quite small

and unlit, now I know sort of best practise

when there's estates built that are much larger than this,

they are lit alleyways.

And so I was wondering whether,

because the police have raised a concern,

and because I know from personal experience

that where areas are unlit,

it does tend to attract ASB over time,

is there any best planning practise

that is expected from developers or something

that could go in as a condition?

Because that does worry me

that if there's lit passages of wages

that directly affect the residents

that are there that we're sort of inviting an open door if there's nothing in the regulations

to have that addressed.

I don't know what you can tell me about the regulations on that.

I'm just going to get the layout up.

Yeah, that's fine.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:16:34

So the comments about alleyways particularly relate to plots.

It's nine to 16 again, so it's that sort of terracotta run that backs onto the tame

own property.

So as you come into the site and then loop round to the left where we've got that terrace

there because of the terraced form, they have a back garden access effectively to one shares

three properties and then another alley shares another three properties.

Now, in response to the comments from the Crime Prevention Design Officer, originally

that alleyway, there was a gate right at the very back of the alleyway, which isn't great

because you can have people hiding within those two terraced runs of property.

So what has been done is the gate has been bought forward of the property, so it will

line up with the frontage of those houses,

which definitely enhances, improves the security situation.

In terms of lighting, we are suggesting a lighting condition.

We do have to carefully balance security, ecology,

bat issues, but I would expect as part of that condition,

obviously this is all without prejudice to the appeal,

that that condition would ensure that there is appropriate

low -level sort of security lighting so that when even the residents use that to

get in and out of their back garden you know get their bike out move the bin or

whatever is the mower that there would be some form of lighting along there but

there are also there are national schemes that house builders can apply

for what's known as secure by design and that sets in effect British standards

for a whole host of aspects ranging from locks to lighting to everything else so

So that's not something that we are,

they can decide to do that, we can't enforce them to do that

but a lot of national health builders do that

and obviously they're here to hear that debate

and discussion.

And finally, Councillor Armand, Alan.

Chairman, thank you, I think my question

has been dealt with.

Cllr Arman Alam - 1:18:48

Thank you.

I will now open the debate.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:18:54

Would members who attended, Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:18:59

I listened with great interest this evening.

There seems to be an assumption that if an illegal agreement can be agreed,

then this site is going to be permitted.

I'm the former Councillor for the Ickney Award under WDC,

and so therefore represented Longwick at the time, the neighbourhood plan.

And I think that tonight they've shown very well that they've given consideration to what's

being proposed here.

They've addressed the committee with the sort of respect that's required and even been able

to ask the MP to come down to give his extra few penneth and add weight to their argument.

The lack of school places, doctors' facilities, the traffic, they're all problems that exist.

exist within Longwick.

But I think if we are to do anything to show the residents

and to show the remainder of all the residents of Buckinghamshire

that we're doing our job, then this needs to go to appeal.

The reason being that we're saying, oh, we're applying this

amount of weight, that amount of weight.

And then we pull the joker out of the back pocket that says,

well, there's no land supply, so it's just an inevitability.

I'm sorry, the weight that's being applied to the fact that

this is outside of the built area as exists in Longwick,

is huge, it should not be allowed.

The natural development that's taken place of Longwick,

there's a natural boundary for the railway

on the other side of the road.

And so most of the growth has taken place there.

If we allow this, we're gonna put pressure on Bar Lane,

if you're familiar with the plan here,

and we'll end up going down to Lurrick -Nield Way.

and that will end up increasing the pressure on Alswick.

And suddenly we're going to end up with Prince's Risborough Longwick.

It's just going to be the new town that everyone's looking for

and everything will be dumped.

This is coming to us at this committee because it hasn't been agreed.

That's because the amount of time that's been spent in it is insufficient.

So what a great job.

Let's get this file off our desk and move on.

Excuse me, is this not a conflict of interest

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:21:17

has declared that he was the previous Councillor for there and he's doing a bit of a pitch.

He's not doing a pitch, he's just saying it's debate.

Next time please raise your hand and I'll come to you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:21:28

That's very kind but the thing is that's the job of a Councillor.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:21:30

I no longer represent this area but the beauty of this is that I've got a general knowledge

of the actual area and so I'm imparting that knowledge to you.

I don't want to, I'm not standing in Icknild,

I stand in Longcrendon.

So you haven't got to worry.

I'm not going to come standing down there either.

So the thing is, having been interrupted,

I think we've got to show the test here.

And this is a chance to take this report

and put it before the inspector

and say how much weight do you apply to this?

And then we can take that as the president

and we can stick it into all the other meetings

that we meet of this nature and say actually no,

the amount of weight they apply to something that's outside the boundary of the built -up area is this.

Instead of, ooh, gonna get costs awarded against us, ooh, no land supply. Got to test these decisions.

I'm fed up with coming to meetings and basically saying, there's no point in being here, we haven't

got a five -year land supply. So either we can all pack up and go home or we can show the people who

have come down here to see what's going on that we actually do our job thoroughly and effectively,

and we take things forward and we let it be decided and get the results we need.

If it gets thrown out at appeal, it gets thrown out at appeal.

It's not going to cost a million pounds.

But at the end of the day, we need proper answers

and people want proper answers to the questions they put to us.

I'm going to ask site attendees first.

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:23:01

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:23:02

Please can I remind members of the committee

if there's any thing you would like to ask come through the chairman and

respect each other as well please thank you so it was a cancer Arthur Hewitt and

counsellor West do you have anything to say because you've got first of you and

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:23:27

the site visits sorry do you want to make a comment because you were at the

Yes, thank you.

So, I mean, in all honesty, we have sat around here at this meeting

and had tilted balance and had to agree things based on tilted balance.

So I get why we're arguing that we should ignore tilted balance tonight,

but I think it's applied to everything that we've had to do recently

and I think we've seen things go through on tilted balance recently.

I do really feel for the fact that it's going against the plan, but I also get the fact

that the plan is considered to be eight years old and therefore carries less weight.

I really do totally understand that Long Week's had a lot of build.

I think from what was being said about the upcoming local plan, it's got a long way before

it's signed off.

And until the government sign it off, it doesn't actually account for everything.

It could be, it is, but it could be entirely invalid,

that plan, so unfortunately that doesn't apply.

And I do appreciate the councillors

who stake their claim on protecting areas

that they used to or now live in or anything else.

I understand how it looks when you're sat in a meeting

and you have to vote, you're being told to vote

how you don't want to vote,

but we're all supposed to come with an open mind.

And it's very difficult when you're sat there

knowing that someone's gonna hold you up for it

when you leave the meeting.

But that's the way the job rolls.

So I don't personally think that we should be refusing it off the basis of stuff that

we've allowed when it's in an area that's not ours.

And then we just have to stick with the fact that tilted balance is tilted balance.

And we have to be fair down the line.

We can't just pick and choose where it matters to us.

Otherwise we end up getting, you know, in trouble with the planning inspectorate by

turning things down that are exactly the same as someone else.

It's an area we didn't mind.

Can I just stop you then?

Sorry.

we're talking about your site visit to the site sorry the site the site visit

itself to be honest if if we ignore the fact that there's been a lot of other

builds there it does align with what's on the other side of the road which is

having builds behind the houses it does actually look like somewhere that would

be appropriate to build had there not been a tonne of other

builds already.

So I think it does come down to the tilted balance.

And I think that looking at it,

there are a load of things I've listened to,

which I sort of appreciate puts a great big huge hefty weight

on the local infrastructure.

But I do think that the build itself,

forgetting everything else has been designed in a way

that does make it doable.

And so I would find it hard having been there to say that we should refuse it on the grounds

of the actual design itself being bad, considering we've got conditions and stuff.

I think the mind did to refuse on the basis of the fact that we haven't got a legal agreement

for all the things that Longwood would need to support this is the thing we need to go

on and not all the other things like tilted balance or, you know, sort of too much houses.

I think the main thing is here is that this build shouldn't go ahead without a legal agreement because of the lack of

Longwick infrastructure, I think that's the important thing

Because actually the build itself has been relatively well done

But often the fact that they've already had a lot of builds that building itself if there were no other bills

You wouldn't argue with it having me been on the site visit. That would be what I'd say

Thank You councillor West as a site visit. Would you like to make comments?

but I think after the site visit, I would agree with you.

There's a lot of things you've said

that I could heartily agree with you.

Cllr Michael West - 1:27:16

There is a certain logic to building on this site.

My two biggest problems are,

one is that we are in a situation again

where we're looking at one single application

and talking about the impact of 57 houses on Longwick.

Let's not forget Longwick have already built 330 houses

since they introduced their neighbourhood plan.

The second one is actually overriding a neighbourhood plan.

Having spent a great deal of time at parish level,

producing a neighbourhood plan for my parish, right,

the last thing I want is either for

the unitary planning inspector to override that plan

or for the national planning framework

to override that plan.

But I know it's gonna happen.

But what I would like to see is more joined up thinking.

Yet again, we're asking to approve something without really knowing its impact on infrastructure

or without a commitment to improving infrastructure.

And really, we've got to get to a position in planning where that has to come first.

And so I'm fully supportive of what the case officer has produced here, but I think we could have pushed this a little bit further.

And I still think there's an opportunity to push this further, to be honest.

I'm opening it to the other members of the committee.

Councillor Mark Turner.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:28:55

I tend to agree with what Councillor Harris has said and I think that we

should be more robust in in our reasons for the refusal so that they so the

inspector has all the evidence in front of him and I think one of the things is

that there's nothing to stop anybody building on the field next door or the

one next to that because it's gonna be the same five -year argument and when

does it stop so so there's got to be point where we also realise that some of

these small villages are not gonna be small villages anymore they're gonna be

They're going to be towns, small towns without any infrastructure.

And I think we have to draw the line there.

So I think whether or not this particular design is okay or whatever, I think is irrelevant in our argument.

I think we really need to think about whether or not we want this to happen toward the small villages.

And, you know, if it's not in a national landscape or in a conservation area, everything is fair game until 2028 or whenever the plan is approved.

and I think we need to draw a line.

And I think this is it.

Councillor Armand -Allen.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Arman Alam - 1:30:00

I echo the concerns raised by Councillor West

in respect to this application.

Longwick is an area where there is one little shop.

There is a secondary school and that seems like it.

So we have to consider, and this is a question as well,

if the officers can help me, about the impact upon this development upon not only local

services but further afield on the services and infrastructure in Princess Risborough.

Because it seems to me that such significant amount of units are going to have a huge impact

on the services and in fact I think there's going to be an extra burden upon those secondary

school and services that are in the area and also upon Princess Risbah and unless that

infrastructure is in place, the concerns that colleagues have here in respect of further

developments I think has a significant weight to it.

Thank you.

Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:31:11

Could the officers bring up appendix B site plan location and they also bring up that one there we've got which shows you the basically where the potential would be but then it amplifies what Councillor Turner and Councillor Harris have talked about about going outside the settlement boundary.

And that's one of the key issues of basically urban sprawl.

One of the key policies are we are not supposed to have urban sprawl.

So it's not just a case of, because if you are the other side of this map here,

you're constrained by a railway line.

So long way can't physically go further west that way.

So if you look at the bottom left hand corner,

it can't physically expand because of the railway lines.

There's physical constraints.

And again, in terms of the way that Plasmids are designed,

basically the main road is in effect where the physical plan,

the L1 to 6 would be, is basically on the left hand side.

What this one does, you see on that picture there,

is it basically opens up the whole of the settlement

and breaches in effect the settlement boundary.

And it says that in the report,

it says it breaches the settlement boundary.

I actually said that wrong.

No, but the point being is, in planning policy terms,

we are not supposed to do that nationally under any PPF, right?

So therefore, if you do this one, the field to the left, one, two, three,

fields to the left, the one above it, the ones to the right,

basically will automatically then in effect, based on this decision tonight.

If you go down that route without saying no, no, sorry,

you know, that's enough, you cannot breach the settlement boundary.

Therefore, all those green fields you see to the right -hand side

will then get developed.

So therefore, it's got to be a much more robust proposal going forward,

saying actually, this application does breach the settlement boundary,

therefore, it's not acceptable.

Aligned with the fact that it's not a sustainable development,

we heard very clearly tonight,

it's a 50 -minute walk to get to Prince Edward's train station,

there are no footpaths, there's no doctor surgery,

there's no utilities and the rest.

Therefore, fundamentally, it's a poor application

in a poor location that cannot be sustained.

And we always talk about sustainable applications

in sustainable locations, and this is not one of them.

So therefore I would support Councillor Turner

and Councillor Harris to go,

actually, when we give the submission to the inspector,

ultimately he will decide, right?

Okay, he will decide.

But we will be saying very clearly, fundamentally,

this is not just about a 106 agreement.

This is about fundamental issues that basically,

Mr. Developper, you have not addressed

and you have not dealt with.

So I'll go away, I'll not double on the highways piece,

I still don't agree with the highways piece.

In terms of when you get the consul tees,

literally it talks about the waste issue,

the flooding issues not being dealt with.

There's a whole series that have not been dealt with.

And I'm not convinced they can be dealt with by a 106.

They might be, might not be, but hey.

But to my view is fundamentally actually,

we say actually it's not a sustainable application in the wrong location

therefore we should be refusing it on those grounds in addition to the 106

agreements and in and then when we go to the conditions the conditions have to be

even more specific and more robust than what we've suggested so far to make it

very clear the infrastructure has to be developed if this one comes forward

you've got to do your infrastructure first to basically say okay it's got a

and see him as own smoke.

Because I think in terms of sewage, waste water,

and the rest, I think this could be an issue

that we could come back and bite us collectively

as a committee.

So I would formally second,

I don't know if I would formally second

Councillor Parrish's and then I'll go

Councillor Turner's suggestion,

but that would be my reasons,

additional reasons for refusal, Chairman.

Thank you.

Does anybody else?

Councillor Arthur Hewitt.

Thank you.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:35:18

Well, I'm wanted to refuse

because we don't have that legal agreement.

And I also think one of the other problems apart from tilted balance, which by the way

I am not a great proponent of I've seen I've seen too many things

I've had to be agreed in here because of it

So so I hope nobody watching this webcast and the people here think come, you know

I can't wait for a plan so we don't have to have to tilt it balance on every application

I think there's also an issue that we're not addressing here, which is that

The policy we had to that gets adhered to is that I think it's around 100 homes

You don't have to contribute.

So when you get loads of developments

at like 50 here, 50 here, 50 here, 50 here,

that's where we let residents down

with a lack of infrastructure

because nobody has to pitch into that infrastructure.

And so what I feel in Longwick

is that all these bills that haven't contributed

have actually caused a problem

in the fact that we can't get them

to contribute directly to it.

So I think that's something we can do on council

to try and address this issue

of how many small bills are allowed

before suddenly you've got no one to pay,

even though there's a large number of people there.

I think that's something we should deal with

so we don't end up in this,

because actually if the other builds have happened,

and they've not had to contribute,

this application has come through

with an offer of a contribution that's in the air,

which is why I'm wanted to refuse, because it isn't there.

But actually that's one that has, when it doesn't need to,

suggested there might be some framework for help.

but we can't go on a if and when and maybe,

which is why I'm minded to refuse.

That would be why I'd be minded to refuse it, thank you.

Councillor Clive Harris.

Thanks very much, Chair.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:37:07

Can we try and put together, please,

a proposal for the refusal based on the fact

that it flies in contradiction

with the existing neighbourhood plan with regard to the settlement area, that it also

conflicts with the emerging local plan, that it's unsustainable.

Anyone else want to chip in?

In addition, one of the policies talks about character of the area and not actually matching

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:37:43

in with the character area. So I didn't go too much into design because there's obviously

the legal agreement element as well, but when you look at the actual offer of the application,

it's a fairly standardised, identikit house, it doesn't really reflect the character and

appearance and the special nature of Limwok is the village, it's sort of just a plonk

and out of housing estate in the middle of the village. In terms of quality of design,

And again, we did keep talk about quality of design.

I don't feel this one's really made that much of an effort.

I can't articulate probably any better than that,

but what I was trying to articulate is that

it's done the bare minimum chairman.

Does that, you know where I'm coming from in terms of,

I don't feel because they knew they were gonna go

for determination, they almost go on there,

that's it, go for it.

And that's like, well, I'm sorry.

We are talking about quality design, sustainability,

reaching the town boundary and the rest.

So it's like, sorry, go do better.

I mean, we've had other applications,

the officers that I've dealt with,

where we've had applicants come back five times

before we've actually given approval,

because again, poor quality design,

not meeting character area, that sort of stuff.

So we have had other applications

that have had gone through a cycle four or five times

to this committee before they actually got approved.

So which did finally get approved,

but they didn't actually,

it had to go through a middle five, four or five times.

Councillor Harris.

Yes, sorry, I would add to that lack of infrastructure.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:39:15

I know that we all receive the same emails and every day we get an email saying that

the roads are closed thanks to Thames Water.

So for them to say there's no problems with the drains locally, I take with a pinch of

salt.

So if we can add lack of infrastructure to that, please.

Any other members?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:39:36

Councillor Mohamed Frias.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:39:43

If the members were minded to refuse the application, what planning reasons would the officer consider

capable of being defended at appeal?

I'll take that one immediately now.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:40:10

The report clearly sets out our assessment of the planning application.

So it covers a host of planning issues ranging from design, quality of living environment,

open space, biodiversity net gain, trees, highways, everything that we are duty bound

to consider.

So that's all set out in the report.

And our assessment is that the scheme is acceptable and complies with development plan policy.

So that's both the Wickham District Local Plan

and the Longwick neighbourhood plan in all respect,

in all respects except for where it is located

and that it's located outside

of the defined settlement boundary.

So we feel that as Councillor Conlon was talking about,

the aspects of the design are acceptable.

The form of the buildings, their scale,

the two -storey scale, the palette of materials

are all reflective of the character and appearance

in Longwick at the moment and reflect our design guidance.

We've got perimeter block form,

which is the best housing layout

because that provides clearly defended back gardens.

It provides good surveillance onto the street

and a clear legibility so that you can understand the street

and an attractive for people to walk through it,

either going to their house,

walking on to school and so on.

So we are not suggesting that there are any other reasons

to refuse this application and no other reasons

that we could justify or defend in the event of an appeal.

And I very much appreciate the frustration

that you all feel as Councillors

in respect to the five -year housing land supply.

we fill that as officers as well. It's unfortunately the way that the national

planning system is stacked and the growth agenda in terms of housing

provision and the way to end that is to have a local plan in place because we

obviously have a plan led system and as the Bucks new local plan goes through

the system we will be able to attach more weight to it and then that will

assist the further we get to that its adoption in defending if we get any

other speculative applications but in the meantime in the absence of a housing

five -year land supply we can only attach limited weight to the conflict that we

have with those housing spatial locational policies, both in the neighbourhood plan and

in the Wickham local plan. You'll be aware we've had numerous appeals on that in other

parts of the county, particularly in the north area, where we have tried to defend those

at appeal and we have not been successful because of the sheer weight. It is the presumption

in favour of housing. So it is almost an automatic yes unless you have very strong significant

harms that tilt the balance back the other way. So there is a presumption in favour of

permitting housing schemes unless there are significant adverse impacts. And in this case

we don't have significant adverse impacts other than the absence of a legal

agreement to secure the infrastructure and affordable housing that is necessary

to make this scheme acceptable in planning terms.

Yeah so just like...

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:44:16

Councillor Turner.

Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:44:26

I don't think you'll get agreement without the spatial part.

Because I think we all feel quite strongly about it and I think we'd like the inspectors to know

that we feel very strongly about the effect it will have on small villages

to allow this development, tilted or no tilted balance.

So personally I'd like to see that the spatial part of it and the neighbourhood plan

in there to make the inspector realise there is a neighbourhood plan.

It's very, very expensive to do a neighbourhood plan.

Having done it for it to only last five years before it starts to lose weight,

I think is, I mean, obviously there's nothing we can do about that, it's a fact.

But I think that, you know, COVID has lent extensions to lots of different things,

but not local plans.

and obviously this was at a time when post -COVID 2021 whatever it's I think it's certainly a criteria.

So as part of our evidence that we will put to the planning inspector that will include

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:45:28

certainly this committee report so obviously this committee report does highlight that there is a

that if we attach any different weight other than the limited weight that I'm suggesting

that would be contrary to the approach that we're taking on other similar applications

across Buckinghamshire and also contrary to the approach that we've had in other appeal

decisions.

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:46:05

Through the appeal process as well, local members, board members, any members, if you

want to write to the inspectors and put your case and say you know it's not fair when a

community prepares a local, sorry a neighbourhood plan and goes through the expense and the

time that that involves to then not have decisions taken in accordance with that plan. You feel

there's an unfairness there. You can make that case. But what we are saying is as a

local planning authority that case has minimal, that doesn't have enough weight, it's not

going to it's not going to win the day it's not going to turn a you know it's

not the inspector will will not take that point up and say that has so much

weight that it outweighs the lack of housing supply that we have and as mrs.

Benjes said I mean this there's numerous planning appeals for Buckinghamshire

that are coming through all the time where this tilted balance we don't have

that so much weight is overriding other points that tell against an application.

There was another point that came out in the debate there was about

sustainability. I would advise against saying this site isn't sustainable. We

had a 2016 appeal at Boxer Road which is at the bottom of the slide there. It's

built out now. The inspector in that case found it was sustainable. It's been

sustainable enough for the neighbourhood plan to allocate housing within the

settlement as well. It does have a bus service although I would accept it's not

a brilliant bus service but it has a bus service. The inspector gave that way. It

does have footpaths to Princess Risbrough as well. I think given the history I think

that would be a dangerous reason for refusal because we couldn't substantiate

that this is not a sustainable site. We wouldn't be able to produce the evidence

and Thames Water issues are Thames Water issues we shouldn't stray into

those and try and fix those as a planning authority. If Thames Water

doesn't object I'm afraid we just have to accept they they don't object. We

sewage and brown water, et cetera.

So I would advise against that as well.

Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Once again, we've heard a plea.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:48:48

All the things we're discussing are subjective.

We're now being advised that there are other appeals

that we're fighting on the amount of weight

that our officers have applied to these problems.

I'd like our officers to take note

of how much weight we are applying to these arguments,

and please put them forward on our behalf.

If that means that your report doesn't reflect

what it should reflect, then that's my opinion.

And that's totally subjective,

and I'm hoping when it goes to vote,

my colleagues will agree with me.

But at the moment, we are being told that,

well, we've done this report, that's all that's acceptable,

because we've made a professional opinion.

As I said before, we're the lay people here,

we're the ones that come in,

and we're asked to make the decision at the end,

Because it affects the people that we represent and so I would like you to take full notice

Just how much weight we're applying to our arguments and put those arguments forward as proposed. Thank you

What I would make is that

You are the decision -makers

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:49:47

You're being advised by officers. You're not laypeople. You are the you are the decision -makers plan applying planning policy

I'm chairman I'm going to talk about policy and the policy reasons for

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:50:08

refusal one minute as I said at the beginning if you'd like to speak put

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:50:12

your hand up please please Councillor Turner and then Councillor Collingwood

yeah thank you Councillor Turner

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:50:19

thank you I think I again agree with Councillor Harris but I think that

I can't see the harm if the inspector effectively says well I'm going to ignore that.

It's still there as a reason for refusal so I don't really see why we can't put it in.

Whether it agrees or doesn't agree with the officer's recommendation, we frequently go

against officer recommendations and I think this is one of those cases.

So I would personally like to see that there are reasons of it for Greenfield and things

like that for it to be a reason for refusal.

Councillor Collingwood. Thank you, I honestly thought you'd seen me indicate

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:51:06

about 20 minutes ago. Okay, so policy reasons for refusal is policy B1

landscape heritage rural character doesn't protect the rural

character, it doesn't respect the landscape setting. Councillor Collingwood,

Could you slowly say that?

And clearly so the officers could -

Sorry, I will go very slowly and very precisely.

Sorry.

So the first policy is policy B1.

It fails on that part, and that should be part of our reasons for refusal.

And the officers may disagree with me, but having looked at the application and

listened to discussion in round, I think there are clear physical reasons for refusal.

Now the inspector may ignore us altogether, right?

But what we're saying is we think there are

reasons for refusal.

So not just the 106, not just about the settlement breach,

but there are physical planning policy reasons

for refusal for this application.

Sorry, did you say B, B for Bertie?

B for Bertie.

There isn't a B1 in the Wickham local plan.

Yeah, okay.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:52:06

Okay, well I got them down as...

I think they're in the neighbourhood plan.

Oh, obviously it must be neighbourhood planning.

There isn't a B1 in the neighbourhood plan.

Okay, well, okay, so I will talk about the relevant

subject themes, and then you can work out

which policy it relates back to, how about that?

So, landscape heritage and rural character.

Okay, so it doesn't protect the rural character.

Doesn't respect the landscape setting.

And it doesn't maintain separation between settlements.

And it also could cause substrate, substrate,

I don't know how to say it, substration.

So as I saw first sort of policy theme, if that makes sense.

Why don't you say what page it's on?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:52:52

I've been looking at page 34, but I'm looking at page 34.

But the point being is they are clear policy themes that are in addition to

why you wouldn't just do a 106.

Because when you look at this application,

it does genuinely fail on planning policy, right?

So that's what I'm trying to get to.

The officers have said it doesn't fail planning policy.

We are the decision makers

and actually we take a different view.

So we're now having to give the planning reasons

for refusal, which officers always tell us we have to do.

So I'm just giving you the planning reasons for refusal.

Now I may not get a seconder,

but hey, I'm gonna go with it anyway.

So the second one is settlement pattern and character

requires to reinforce the village form and scale.

does not reflect Longwick's linear form.

So again, as you've seen that,

it's almost taking it like a T junction,

that picture you see there, it literally takes it,

instead of going up and down the main 4129 like it would do,

it's going out to the right, right?

So it's not actually,

yeah, outside the building line, yeah.

That's exactly right, Castor.

So it's outside the building line, in effect.

And it obviously extends the village

out into the open countryside,

And it does physically breach, as we said before,

the current boundary settlement of the village boundary.

So that's sort of policy theme number two.

Policy theme number three is green infrastructure

and biodiversity.

I'm not convinced, plant a few trees, great.

I don't feel within the context

of what they've submitted to us,

they've given us enough detail

about how they're going to actually,

they talk about 33 % biodiversity gain.

I didn't get the sense of any real,

they just go, nah, tick it, that'll do.

So I don't feel that whole piece

has really been adequately justified.

Now the officers may say no to that bit,

but I didn't get the sense of.

Policy area number four is about the lack of sustainability

in terms of actually how the heck do you get

to Prince's Ridge train station?

genuinely, I looked at it and went,

well how are you gonna get there?

You're not gonna get there, right?

And fundamentally, this is gonna be

a dormitory settlement.

This is gonna be a people going to work

in London and or Birmingham via Prince's Reserve

train station.

So to me, this policy area is lack of limited payments,

lack of pedestrian safety, and lack of a sustainable way

of actually getting to Reserve Reserve

in any way, shape, or form, unless you use a car.

in which case your volume of car usage goes up.

The final one is about flooding drainage and groundwater.

I fundamentally see, in my view,

we've been to other sites

with Mrs. Bellinger and Risber recently,

where again there were fundamental issues

with flooding, surface water and the rest.

This is literally very, very close by

to those previous sites we've physically visited on site,

and has the same issues.

So therefore you've got inadequate drainage capacity,

the frequent standing water, the suds don't really work,

the flood lead authority, which is us,

again, not happy with the data being provided,

and again, the groundwater protection piece.

Finally, then you look at infrastructure

capacity constraints, I'm not convinced

that they've shown us how local schools get things.

The local school schools are full,

the risk of school is full, right?

So it's not, it's already full.

And they've got thousands of houses coming from other sites around this area as well.

So again, schools, GP surgeries, public transport, the water,

sewer electricity, none of it adds up.

Does that make sense?

These are my sort of thematic pieces of why we would be submitting to the inspector

saying look, it's not just about 106,

it's about this application does not address those issues as of today.

Now if they had more time, they probably could have done a better application and

could have addressed these issues.

Based on what I've had in front of me,

I would have thrown it back and go do it again.

Genuinely, it's not, it's a what I call bare minimum,

not very special, do you know what I mean?

So therefore, if I had it in front of my committee,

I'd be going, go away, start again.

Literally, I would go, not from what the officers done,

the officers done a fantastic job,

but from the applicant and what they submitted to us,

basically it's not acceptable in terms of those,

you know, policy terms.

So that would be my reasons, additional reasons

for refusal of them.

Now, the officers may not agree,

but personally, that's where I'm coming from.

Now whether I get a second or I don't know, but that's where I'm coming from. Thank you chairman

Thank you leave that with us

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:57:29

Can I just

Cheque and understand no meetings go through the chair, but can I ask the Councillor the concerns about electricity?

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:57:44

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:57:52

Well, in another, in other, we're Mr. Stewart, we met East Clayton electricity substation

last week or the week before.

We had the issue with the solar farm as well.

We had relevant blackouts already recently.

I'm not convinced based on the local current capacity we have that's not due to be extended

till 2035.

If you go and do it yet more to this area, then I think you'll find you're in a permanent

blackout.

So that's where I'm coming from.

So as an appeal, when we turn up to give evidence,

we are expected to say,

we think there's going to be blackouts?

Well, nationally, they've been told there's blackouts.

If you read the Times this week,

it tells you there's blackouts,

because basically the existing infrastructure

can't cope with it.

With what we've already got today,

because 2035 is before you actually do the upgrade

to East Clayton.

So in our local area for Buckinghamshire,

we are at massive risk already,

Because we haven't got an upgrade till 2035.

Well it obviously is part of the,

we don't have any evidence with this planning application,

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:58:56

with this application in front of you

to suggest that there is an issue.

And it's a slightly separate issue,

but obviously as part of the new local plan,

we obviously have to consult

with various infrastructure providers.

and that includes water, waste, electricity,

broadband, et cetera, and all of that is,

they factor in the growth levels that are proposed

and forthcoming as part of that new local plan,

and that exercise would have been done

as part of the original WICCIP local plan.

So we don't have any evidence on this planning application

to substantiate that as a reason for refusal.

So if we were running at that at appeal,

we wouldn't have a leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

And I know you hate us saying the word,

but we would be facing a cost claim

for putting in reasons for refusal

that we have no evidence to back up

and substantiate, I'm afraid.

I get that the electricity piece, if that's fine,

but I think the other pieces do still apply.

That makes sense.

So when you look at the GP services,

they've clearly said in the report there's no GP services available. The

school places we know are physically full so therefore we have the evidence

already today that the rules are full and basically they're having to basically ship

people to Milton Keynes because that's the scenario as we are today. So we're

looking at the plan, the application as of today and that's what the

situation is of today. So literacy I get, the sewage piece

definitely is an issue thank you can we come back on that let the officers go

through the list and we come back to you thank you

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:00:42

Councillor Harris you had your hand up yeah I was just gonna say can we have a

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:00:49

list of what we've got so far and I think if we can put that into the

correct terminology then we probably there with or without the electricity

Councillor Harris, I started with electricity but there were a lot of, it was going to be

the same question on a lot of things. We did produce a list.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:01:11

Shall we start at the top? I might start at the bottom actually.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:01:20

I'll start on the, so you talked about infrastructure in terms of schools being full, GPs, public

transport etc on those bits so we you will have seen the comments we've had

back from the ICB tens value I should be that obviously deal with GP surgeries

and they are requesting a contribution and that is part of the minded to reason

for a feasible that this game requires contribution to that element of primary

health care so that is something that we have sorry if I can just step in so the

evidence base for this application demonstrates

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:01:56

that the unacceptable impact can be mitigated

by the 106 contributions, okay?

So those can be overcome.

Yeah, cool.

So that would cover the GP surgery, the school contribution,

and we're obviously seeking,

we're also seeking a contribution

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:02:12

towards public transport provision.

Secondary schooling is covered by CIL contributions

for a scheme of this size.

I'm not sure if I need to say any more on school capacity.

I mean, certainly in terms of the current school,

the latest projections that I've got from colleagues

in county education, the capacity of the school

in Longwick is 210, and their school role

as of September 25 is 168, so they're not at capacity

at the minute but the forward projections do show,

then we have a capacity issue

which is why we have the justification

for the primary education contribution.

I'm gonna keep going in reverse actually.

Yeah, so then you've talked about,

I think item five was about drainage, flooding,

and comments about Thames water.

Again, as we've set out in the report,

They have done detailed groundwater modelling

as part of this application.

A lot of other detailed work as to how

their surface water drainage system is going to work.

So they will be utilising suds,

as we would expect on the scheme of this size.

And the lead local flood authority

are seeking more technical information.

So there is not an in principle objection.

So this scheme would not increase the risk of flooding

either onsite or offsite.

It's just down to the final detailed technical design

of that drainage scheme.

And that can be adequately dealt with

by whatever planning condition.

And that is one of the recommended conditions

that we've got in the back of the pack.

And obviously Thames Water have given us

constantly comment.

That comment will go to the planning spectra

because they will see all comments from consultees.

And again, that is, we are suggesting a planning condition

that deals with the water capacity aspect.

But in respect of sewerage,

they have said that there is sufficient capacity

to serve these new 57 homes.

And we have to take that on its face value

as to what they have said.

And it's also a need to be mindful, as I said before,

the fact that the sewer system at the moment

is coping with both sewer and surface water.

And this scheme would not put its surface water

into the existing sewer system.

It would have a separate system.

Yes, item four, you were talking about

lack of sustainability.

So part of that is addressed again,

it's a mitigating item in section 106

in that we are seeking contributions to bus,

enhancing the local bus service.

And as Mr. Stewart said before,

other appeal decisions that we've had in Longwick,

inspectors have ruled that it is

a relatively sustainable settlement

because you do have the post office, the shop,

primary school on your doorstep.

But there will inevitably be an element of car travel,

of people having to undoubtedly travel for work.

And if they're wanting to go further afield

for a bigger supermarket,

they will have to go back to Risborough.

But I think it's just being mindful

as to how far that travel is.

I mean, we're only talking about a couple of kilometres

to get to Princess Risborough

compared to probably some other settlements

that will be considered to be far more rural

and unsustainable in their location.

BNG, I've got as item three.

Again, we fully addressed and covered that

within the report.

So this scheme would be subject to mandatory

biodiversity net gain, so the mandatory 10 % requirement.

So there are mandatory planning conditions

that are put on all schemes to secure that.

They've evidenced that they can achieve that

by on -site aspects, be that green roofs, ecological enhancements, particularly also within the

open space area, new planting going within there, an area of orchard, and then various

ecological mitigations ranging from holes in the fence so that hedge holes can get through,

swift boxes, bat boxes, the whole range of ecological enhancements that are proposed

and we would secure those by planning conditions as part of the scheme.

So it does satisfy both the local and the statutory requirement when it comes to biodiversity

net gain.

Item two is about settlement pattern and the character.

And again, we've covered this off in the report, so there's quite a detailed section about

landscape, visual impact, and that is historically the linear form of Longwick was quite a strong

defining characteristic.

But over time, that has been slightly weakened and diluted by the fact that we have had development

coming forward behind that existing linear frontage.

And you just need to think about what harm does arise

from putting housing in this location.

And our advice to you is that it is not resulting

in landscape harm.

It's very visually contained as members confirm

from the site visit.

There are no sort of public views,

there's no footpaths immediately near the site, you will get small glimpses through

to the site itself of the new homes, but because of their scale, form, their appearance and

landscaping it's not going to be obtrusive or alien in that street scene.

We feel that we couldn't substantiate a reason for refusal that goes about settlement pattern

or character or appearance.

And the last one.

It doesn't respect the separation between settlements.

I think that one is.

And it doesn't respect rural character.

So the last one was about the rural character

and not respecting the separation between settlements.

And again, I think this goes back to,

you know, we do acknowledge that it is outside

the defined settlement boundary,

as is defined in both the Wickham local plan

and the neighbourhood plan.

But the harm, there is not the level of harm

arising from the housing in that location

to justify a reason for refusal that has weight

that we can defend at appeal, I'm afraid.

Councillor Conlon, would you had your hand up?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:09:48

Just to clarify though, when we look at that map there, it clearly breaches the settlement

boundary, it clearly breaches the built form line, if that makes sense. So therefore surely

we have to flag with the inspector because in doing that, the build to your left and

to your right of it are materially in effect.

When the next application comes in, they'll go,

well, actually, because that one's breached it already,

we can now breach it as well.

And so therefore, I think we have to flag with the inspector,

I'm sorry, that this is a clear breach.

Now, you may go, I don't care.

And you may go, I don't care.

But we have to say, look, that's clear breach.

Therefore, you cannot, going forward,

then allow other developments to go forward

to basically fill in the gaps between that.

and that's where I'm coming from.

Because in effect, if you allow this as it is

without pushing back on it, it will be open season.

Because it's green field, not green belt, right?

So therefore we know that the developers will go,

well hey, thanks very much, off we go.

And we've clearly breached the settlement boundary, right?

So how do we, I don't know how we put it in formative,

but conditioning says, you know,

you've done it on an exceptional basis,

you know, when we talk about green belt

and there's no special circumstances

or need, you have to do something that some formulation of words that then explains, you

know, on an exceptional basis, this has been allowed on an exceptional basis rather than

it being, this is just accepted. Because I think if we hadn't got the tilted balance,

the answer would be a straight no. Because it's only purely because it's tilted balance

all we're in this discussion, right? This is what I'm getting at. If we looked at it

on its merits, without the tilted balance, you go, you know what, the answer's no. So

that's where I'm coming from in terms of how we submit that to the inspector going, you

of like we wouldn't have if without the balance the answer would have been a no.

So the report does clearly set out that this is beyond the settlement boundary and it does

acknowledge that both in terms of its conflict with the development plan so that's the neighbourhood

plan and the Wycombe local plan and it does acknowledge that and it clearly does set out

that it's in conflict with that and the inspector will get this committee report and the minutes

of this meeting as part of our appeal evidence.

But what it then goes on to say is that there is no harm,

or there is, we can only attach limited weight

to that harm that is arising.

Because as I've said to you, we have to consider

what is the harm arising from putting housing

in that location.

And we consider there is no landscape character harm,

There is no character and appearance harm.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:12:31

It is beyond that line that sits

within the development plan,

but that line is unfortunately weakened,

muddied because we do not have a five year

housing land supply.

And as and when, if other applications come forward,

we don't necessarily know that they will.

It will all depend on a landowner and their interests.

We obviously have to judge each case on its merits.

And yes, this case will then end up being a material consideration and the appeal decision will be a material consideration

As to how we judge those other applications

and again, it just goes back to the importance and the reliance for us to

Try and get a five -year housing land supply as soon as possible, but we do have to give

significant weight to the fact that this scheme is delivering housing and

assisting in us meeting that need and reducing that deficit that we've got in

terms of five -year housing land supply.

Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much. I think we're going through a list of why we're looking to refuse this.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:13:40

According to 1 .7 the appellant has indicated they intend to enter into a legal

agreement to cover all these things. These things aren't in place. These things are required

of the developer if they go ahead with the development. So at the moment, as far as I

can see, to your mind, if you've got to argue the case, we're carrying on arguing the case.

We're not here to argue the case. We're here to say, we don't want this. It's out of keeping.

It's outside the neighbourhood plan and it's outside the emerging local plan. And those

are the reasons I want to hear for us refusing this because I just feel I'm

being lectured at the moment and I say that so kindly by a legal officer with

a decision makers here we'd like to see us our decision up hold thank you can I

just can I just can I just clarify with cancer has essentially what you're

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:14:35

saying is it's outside the settlement boundary that's that's it in a nutshell

Is that right?

That's a pro one, but also you're saying that

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:14:43

the appellate is going to mitigate the problems,

and there are ways of mitigating,

but they've got to negotiate those mitigations.

They're not in place yet, because they've just said,

if I said to you, yes, I'll pay for a school,

well then you say the school's a million pounds,

I say, well, a hundred thousand pounds,

but in my pocket, it's not going to cut the mustard.

So the thing is that whilst they're expected

to produce these things, if they can't be agreed,

then it's not gonna happen anyway.

But we can't say what we're not going to put these forward as arguments for why we don't want it because as I said

They're not in place. We have these deficiencies

Yes, so there's no doubt. I mean your office is assigned to you that the lack of a legal agreement is a reason for refusal

So we're going to make sure that that agreement

Provides the relevant contributions to the points that are already in the report so points like schools

health, transport, we don't want to see this scheme going ahead without those things covered

in a legal agreement, which we could then, if it's a bilateral agreement, we would sign

it, it could be a unilateral agreement, which is where the developer signs the agreement

and says they'll commit to these things.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:16:00

But I think it's, the infrastructure points, we are saying the scheme is not acceptable

without an agreement to secure those.

Councilman Mark Turner. Thank you Chen. So I think we're going around in circles here

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:16:18

aren't we? Because I mean if we're just saying subject to an S106 well we may as

well approve it and say it's subject to an S106. We're going around in circles.

What we want to do is actually refuse it on other grounds as well as the S106

because we want to make sure that it's highlighted to the inspector that we

don't agree with the spatial aspect of it and we don't agree that it goes

against the neighbourhood plan and we don't agree that it's built on Greenfield

site. Whether that is in keeping or not that is what I think we all feel and I

think that's what we need to put in the refusal. So I think we actually either

find a refusal and reasons for it and put that forward or else then we vote on

what is proposed and see how people vote. But I think we need to do one or the

other because it's ten to nine now and we're going around in circles so sorry

Thank You chairman. I agree councillor Harris you're the last speaker you had

your hand up or you were gonna say something. I say you'll say that the

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:17:20

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:17:23

primary argument other than the legal thing is the fact that it's outside the

the boundary of the development and the not in keeping with the emerging local plan.

So if we can have some wording that reflects that and the legal, then I think we can have a vote on that.

I think we've given, I think we've advised this committee as best we can and they are the decision makers.

and so I think we need to articulate some reasons for refusal.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:17:53

I think we'll be able to do that. If you just give us one moment, we'll just find some words.

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:18:04

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:18:32

So, officers are going to read for you based on what they've heard from you, some reasons

for refusal and then that will have to form the basis of a proposal and be seconded.

In addition to the current reason for refusal in front of you about the absence of a section

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:19:03

106 to secure the necessary infrastructure and affordable housing, the additional reason

and for refusal would be the proposed development

by reason of its location outside of the defined

settlement boundary of Longwick would result

in the unjustified expansion of built development

into the countryside on land not allocated

for residential development.

The development would therefore be contrary to

policies CP2, which is the overall spatial strategy,

CP3, which is a settlement strategy.

Policy RUR5, which is the Longwick -cum -Ilmer Parish policy.

DM21, which is the location of your housing.

Of the Wickham District Local Plan

and policy A1 of the Longwick Neighbourhood Plan

and the objectives of the NPPF.

Do you want me to read that again?

Charles is saying time out.

So do I have a proposal in seconder for this?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:20:18

I'll propose that.

Thank you, Chairman.

I just want to cheque I've got the right policy references.

So just bear with me for five minutes.

Councillor Ahlan, we're talking about a serious subject.

You can have your five minutes after we've closed the session, yeah?

Did we have a seconder coming back?

Councillor Harris and seconder is Councillor Mark Turner.

I just want to come back on the policy references because we just need to be clear that we're

using the right policy references that are justified and relate to the location of housing.

So I'm just going to run this by you again.

The proposed development by reason of its location outside of the defined settlement

boundary of Longwick would result in the unjustified expansion of built development into the countryside

on land not allocated for residential development.

So the development would therefore be contrary

to policies CP2, which is the overall spatial strategy,

CP3, the settlement strategy, and DM21,

the location of new housing,

and that's from the Wickham District Local Plan.

Now, I previously mentioned RUR5,

which is the Longwick policy.

it's not contrary to that because that is talking about

the allocation of sites in the neighbourhood plan

and it doesn't reference,

it purely references new allocations.

So that's, I would suggest we don't reference IUR5

and that we also do not reference policy A1

of the Longwick neighbourhood plan

because again, that policy relates to

development within the settlement boundary of Longwick and we are outside

the settlement boundary so it's simply referring to the spatial policies in the

Wiccan plan about where new development can or can't be located okay

can you put your microphone on councilman Turner l1 to l6 which is

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:26:25

referenced in Councillor Matthew Walsh's comments

under not an allocated plan, L1 to L6 site allocations.

We don't have an L1 in the neighbourhood plan.

As far as I'm aware, they're all A numbers

in the Longwick neighbourhood plan.

Sorry, I'm just referencing page 33.

Sorry, L, what number did you say?

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:26:51

page 12 of the officers report.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:27:09

So can you just say that was the point that the development is contrary to l1

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:27:13

l2 l3 up to l6. No I think it's just the fact it's contrary to the neighbourhood

plan and it references the sites that are there.

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 2:27:29

So those L policies that you've got on page 12, those are the allocations in the neighbourhood

plan. So those are the sites that are allocated.

So it wouldn't be correct to refer to those because this isn't an allocated site.

Those are simply referring to allocations. So it's that's why I'm also suggesting why

where we cannot refer to A1 in the neighbourhood plan

because that is about allocations.

The crucial policies are ones in the Wickham local plan

where it talks about the spatial strategy

and where development can or shouldn't be located.

Sorry, so that reason that was delineated

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:28:14

should also be in addition to the lack of a section 106

and that I'm just making sure we understand you correctly and that both

of those overcome the presumption of the of development yes motion and seconder

agree with that

those for what mrs. Bellingy stated those in favour of that can I see a show

of hands, please. Those against. Abstentions. So that's carried. Thank you.

I suggest a five minute comfort break because I'm sure cancer

is desperate.

So I'll see you in seven minutes past nine.

Thank you.

4 PL/25/4603/FA Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, Buckinghamshire HP27 9SF

5 PL/26/02426/FA - 226 Totteridge Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP13 7LF

We move on to item 5, which is PO 2602426 -FA226, total for highway convex.

I would like to hand out, I have just noticed, and I don't know, I would have to ask the

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:29:47

legal team, the gentleman, one of the opposers, I belong to an organisation which helps people

with Brieuwen and I know he's a committee member,

but I'm the vice chairman, but I haven't discussed this

or made any mind up on this, is that okay?

Mr. Stoolchair, thank you very much.

I'd like to hand over to Yee Chung Hui

to introduce this item, thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Yee, I'm one of the officers

in the Buckinghamshire Area Team Two.

Yee Chung Hui - 2:30:22

I'm here to present you with a household application for part first floor side extension and single -storey

ground for rear extension at number 226 Tortoise Road

Before I formally start I would like to share with you we have a late representation letter received from the neighbours

The objections were made regarding compliance with the one metre route to the share boundary

for proposed extensions.

Application should be recommended to refuse if this route has not been complied with.

In here, the images are showing the location of the application site.

On the left image, that's a satellite image

of the application site in relation to the two neighbours.

The image in the middle is the front elevation

of the application dwelling.

And on the right hand side is a location plan

of the application dwelling.

Next slide please.

The site is within a sloped area of Tortage Road

within an existing residential area

that is outside of Greenbelt, National Landscapes,

Conservation Area, and cottage of listed buildings.

The properties in the area are mostly detached properties

along the same side of the application site,

with semi -detached properties on the opposite side

of the application site, where there is a mixed range

of dwelling styles, roof forms, and design features.

The larger image in this presentation slide is showing the dwelling types and design along

the same side of the application site.

The top right image is the adjacent dwelling, number 228 Tortage Road at the centre.

With the bottom right image is the adjacent neighbour of number 224 Tortage Road.

Next slide please.

Here is showing the existing plans and elevations of the existing dwelling.

The existing dwelling is a modest two -storey gable and property with part brick finish

at the ground floor and part rendered to the first floor.

Bay window feature is at the front of the first floor with a single storey pitch roof

canopy covering the side and the front extension.

There is a parking area to front

that is parked and closed by the brick boundary wall.

We've stepped gardens to the rear

and out buildings behind as well.

Next slide please.

The left photo is showing the existing gap

and the side elevation next to the neighbour,

228 Trattoe Road.

The existing separation is approximately four metres

at the front and 2 .4 metres to the rear.

This is also where the proposed first floor side extension

will be situated into.

On the centre photo is showing the existing ground floor

plan and also some measurements of the separations

between the dwelling and the share boundary.

The right photo is just showing the gap on the ground floor

and next to number 228.

A proposed in -field rear extension will be situated

behind the existing study room area.

Next slide please.

The left photo is showing the rear

behind the existing study room.

This is also where the infield extension

would be proposed to situate into.

And the right photo is just showing the views

onto the share boundary next to the neighbour.

Next slide please.

On the left you've got the rear elevation

of the existing dwelling.

And the right photo is showing the step garden

to the rear of the property.

Next slide please.

Coming back to the front,

the left photo is showing the existing relationship

with number 228 and the separation.

You've got a tapered boundary,

you're just about to be able to see that.

With the right photo, showing the side elevation

of the converted bedroom of number 228.

This is a secondary side window that you're looking at.

Next slide please.

On the left hand side, this is the existing windows

to the rear of the converted garage of number 228.

There is a primary rear bedroom window

with a secondary living room window to the side.

The right side photo is showing the relationship

between the two properties from the rear.

On the left hand side is the application dwelling

and the neighbour number 228 has a high level.

Next slide please.

And just to give you a better idea

of the context of the site,

This is a satellite image showing the rear of the properties.

So 226, which is the application drawing where the pointer is, and the neighbour 228 just

on the right -hand side.

Next slide, please.

This slide is showing the proposed elevations and floor plans.

The proposal is for a first floor site extension

with an in -field extension behind the ground floor study area.

Amanda Pan's, as you are seeing in here, have been

agreed with the agent to include a reduced height of a gable

and first floor site extension with

an in -field crown roof extension behind that.

And also, insertion of high level and obscured windows are positioned

to the side of the first floor extension that is serving for family bathroom at the front

and addressing from area behind.

Go back to the previous slide.

In terms of the elevations, the top left is the front elevation proposed with the centre

and at the top is the existing, sorry, proposed ground floor

and proposed first floor floor plans.

With the top right is the proposed rear elevation

and at the bottom you have the proposed side elevation

and the roof plan.

So to give you an idea of the scale

and the dimensions of the extensions,

the larger first floor side extension,

where the gable end is, is approximately 2 .65 metres width

with 5 .2 metres deep.

It has a retained gap of 1 .3 metres at the front

and a narrow gap of 0 .6 metre behind next to number 228.

The smaller crown roof extension is approximately

1 .65 metres wide and 2 .5 metres deep.

retaining a 1 .5 metres gap at the widest and a 0 .9 metre gap at the narrowest.

With the rear extension on the ground floor, it's approximately 5 .8 metres deep,

so that would just bring it in line with the rear conservatory of the property,

and at the maximum of 2 .65 metres wide at the front,

and two metres wide at the rear.

Next slide please.

And this is a final slide just to show the gap

and the tapered boundary next to the neighbour 228.

This is the end of my presentation, thank you very much.

Thank you. We have some public speaking on this item. Firstly, we have Councillor Julia

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:39:29

Cllr Julia Wassell - 2:39:37

Wesson. Thank you, Chairman. I was approached, as

So I looked at it closely and fairly independently, and I was shocked by the close proximity to

his property of the original application.

Then an amendment was submitted and again I'm afraid that the, as you've just heard,

there is a 0 .606 metre gap in one place tapering to 0 .991 metres. Now to my mind this is far

too close to the neighbouring property.

It makes severe incursion on the privacy of the neighbour.

And as well in the amendment, I think

it was quite a shock to the neighbours

to find that six new windows were going to be included.

And one of those windows was much larger

than in the original application.

So I decided to call it into the committee,

even though obviously I respect the work of the officer

in terms of discussions with the applicant

and making this attempt to come to a compromise.

But it isn't a compromise for the neighbour

that I represent this evening, who I think,

you know, his peaceful existence in his own home is going to be really severely curtailed

by the surmended application. It's less than a metre away, as I've said, from the neighbouring

property, and the windows, though opaque, are, there will be light through those windows,

they can open in certain circumstances and I think the appearance and character

of the property will be changed further to 26 and there will be a terracing

effect by this this new development obviously I know Tottridge Road very

well having represented Tottridge for 30 years and it's a very interesting road

running from above the railway station right also thank you so it ends up yes

Okay, thank you very much.

We move on to the objector. Oh, sorry, points of clarification.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:42:52

No? No? No, we have got none.

Moving on to the objector, Mr Zaid Iqbal, you've got three minutes.

Public Speaker - 2:43:06

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my objections.

Just a point of clarification as far as the case officer's report is concerned.

In paragraph 1 .1 and 2 .1, she states that the applicant property is a two -storey dwelling

that is incorrect.

It is a three -storey dwelling, ground floor, first floor and a second floor.

The second floor has two bedrooms and a bathroom facility.

It's not two storeys, it is three storeys.

During the process I have objected twice to the first application and the amended application.

In the first application I stressed that there was no site notice displayed at the property

at all and no notice was taken off that during the whole process.

Moving on, in terms of my objections, I hope you've read my two objection reports.

But in summary, as the local councillor has identified,

basically this existing applicant site has already been extended five times.

The two houses, the applicant site and our site,

were built as mirror images 90 years ago.

Our site, if you look at it from the front

and from the photographs, hardly anything has changed,

including the roof.

They were detached properties.

They gave space around each property.

The applicant site, as I said,

has been changed at least five, six times.

The front has changed, the side has changed,

the rear has changed, and lastly,

A number of years ago the roof was taken off and totally rebuilt.

It was originally like our house, hipped at four sides, so you had a lot of space around the roof.

It was rebuilt as a gable -ended high roof, which then now encompasses two bedrooms and a bathroom.

If you look at it, what was built 90 years ago, it bears no resemblance.

and with this current proposed extension building it all the way on the ground floor up to the boundary line,

it doesn't fulfil the Council's own one metre rules or even the 45 degree angle from the middle of the window.

I appreciate the case officer has said we do have two windows but the second window it fails on those conditions.

it's too close to our property. Then in the revised application out of the blue

six new windows are introduced which bears no resemblance to the first set of

plans and in addition to that the windows that were proposed on the ground

floor one of them is increased.

Thank you. Can I ask members are there any points for clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:46:25

No, thank you. Moving on to the applicant.

Sorry, do I need to press? You need to switch off your microphone, thank

Public Speaker - 2:46:33

you. Moving on to the applicant, Callum Bentley, you have three minutes to speak.

Good evening. As you've heard, when we first designed this, we were going the full length

ground floor and first floor to match number 230, the other side of the opposer. We have

accepted to reduce the first floor which has really increased the cost and the

complexity of the build. We're happy to do so as the planning officer has advised

us to do. Regarding the six windows the three on the ground floor are actually

below the next -door neighbour's ground level so they'll be looking at a brick wall

and the ones upstairs are going right at the top of the ceiling so we can't see

out of them they're just there to let some natural light in not to let us look

out. Our windows go front and rear. Yes it's had five extensions done on this

property. We haven't lived there. We moved in in January so none of those are to do

with us. We know nothing about them but from our point of view we've worked as

hard as we can to make sure this extension is as reasonable as possible.

It's now been set back a few times and we believe it's a well balanced design

and sits comfortably within our home.

This extension is about building something excessive.

It's about creating the space for our growing family's needs

so we can continue to live in the home we love.

Each house on our road is wonderfully different.

We hope that the committee can see that.

We've taken the planning officer's comments on board,

made every change that has been requested

and done so at our own expense

because we want to get the proposal right.

Thank you.

Committee members, any point for clarification?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:48:20

No? Okay. Thank you.

Now we move on to technical questions for the officer.

Any committee members?

Councillor Armand -Allen.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Arman Alam - 2:48:46

Chairman, can I request that we bring up the plans of the House, if possible, on the screen?

I have a question.

It's technical and non -technical in the sense that it's quite clear that the accommodation

comprises of the ground floor, first floor, and the attic accommodation.

And the report appears to be based upon it being a two -floor accommodation.

Can some clarification be given in respect to that, please?

So just coming back to that, the application has been assessed based on the information

Yee Chung Hui - 2:49:19

and application details submitted.

So what was put in front of us is that it is a, we consider this as a two -storey building.

loft conversions, unless you're putting in

a dormer windows or external loft conversions,

there is no planning restrictions in terms

of internal loft conversion in the loft area.

So although the objectives has suggest

that this is a three storey dwelling,

but actually in planning terms it is still a two storey.

you've got the first you've got the ground floor you've got a first floor

window and the loft area that is covered by the roof unless there are three

windows on each of the floor that stacks up then that will count as a three -storey

property

cancer Arthur you thank you so I attended the site visit and I'm

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:50:28

I mean, I can pretty much see why it's considered too close,

but I mean, just for the purposes of just making it clear,

because I gather that's not actually a material objection

given the distances required.

Could you repeat what you told me at the site visit?

Just to remind me.

And also the other question was regarding having heard

that there was nothing put up to display,

do we discount that or not,

given that we don't have any evidence

whether anything was put up to display or not,

regarding the application?

Thanks.

Okay, so I'll just go back to the second question

about the display of the site notice.

Yee Chung Hui - 2:51:11

I presume that's what you're asking about.

So for householder applications,

if you're not within a conservation area,

or the building itself is not a listed building,

and it is also not a minor development

that attracts public interest,

so such as commercial or housing development

or replacement dwelling even.

In this area, we don't put up site notice for that reason.

So I'm afraid for this application type,

we are not going to put up,

and we haven't put up a site notice because of that.

So can you repeat your first question?

Yeah, the first question was, whilst I, you know, when I went on the site visit I

did think it was very close, I did cheque and I just liked if it was possible to

repeat because you said it actually did fall within the available, you know,

distance of, you know, not being a material condition how close it was and

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:52:16

if you just repeat that so that we know what the material concerns are with the

the proximity of it.

Thank you.

Okay, so with the proximity,

Yee Chung Hui - 2:52:24

if the one metre route is not complied with,

then officers will have to assess whether

there is substantial harm to the character

and appearance of the street scene and to the dwelling.

And if the harm itself is limited or knowledgeable

and does not justify for a reason of refusal

on design grounds, then I'm afraid we can't stand on that as a reason of refusal.

Thank you. Moving on to Councillor Alex Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:53:05

Thank you, Chairman. On page 55, it talks about loss of privacy, loss of light and overbearing.

In the pictures we did see two windows, one was a repurposed bedroom, one was a side lounge.

In terms of the privacy piece, are we saying because the, that's the one there, are we saying because the extension will have obscure glass,

there was no loss of privacy.

Is that what you're articulating in the report?

I think that's what you were saying,

but I wasn't quite sure.

Having seen all the pictures, I went, oh, OK.

So that was my first question.

So yes, because the proposal has proposed for high level windows

Yee Chung Hui - 2:53:54

that is above 1 .7 metres from the finish floor level,

that is considered high level in planning terms.

So a general person will not have a direct outlook

into the neighbouring properties.

So because of that, and also based on the proposed plans,

they have agreed, or they have submitted

and proposed as obscure grazing.

So together, being high level and obscure glazed

is considered to safeguarding the amenities of the neighbour,

and therefore there is no overlooking.

And just to point out,

under the list of the recommended conditions,

Condition number three has suggested that the windows serving to non -habitable rooms,

including the rear windows at the first floor level, has to be obscured as well, unless

they are above the 1 .7 metres finish floor level.

That helps me on the privacy piece.

on the overbearing piece, am I right in thinking that's the objector actually,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:55:08

what I could work out from those pictures, the one that's objecting actually is lower down,

is lower down, because the way the hill goes down, yeah, the one object is higher up than the,

so then the applicant is lower down and is lower down, that's right, I was just double checking,

okay right, okay, I thought I was getting, I was like, because I saw about 52 photographs,

Okay, which one, okay fine.

That's great, thank you.

That's really helpful.

Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Sharon.

I'm sorry, I was just wondering what the rules are

in terms of proximity to the boundary.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:55:43

I know there's different rules for permitted development,

class A, where I think if it's over four metres,

it's gotta be like two metre distance from the boundary

and if it's 2 .5 to four metres, it's half a metre.

So what was the height of this and how far away is it?

Does that include the gable roof end as well?

Does that overhang the property?

What are the actual planning rules on it?

Is it just basically them trying to find out?

Okay, so let me just share you with the slide

on the last slide showing the images

of the boundary separation.

This one, thank you.

So the general rule for first floor extensions

Yee Chung Hui - 2:56:26

or two storey extensions is that they would need

to retain a minimum of one metre gap to the boundary.

Ground floor library does not have such rule applies.

So for the ground floor,

there is no minimum distance required.

But for the first floor, it would be a one metre gap.

And as part of the consideration of the application,

we have tried to discuss and negotiate with the applicant

to reduce the width of the extension.

Is that because it's a first floor extension

so it's actually too close in terms of our policy?

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:57:08

That's correct, yeah.

If I can just add there,

what we said on site was that there is a conflict with the policy but then you

Mr Chris Steuart - 2:57:21

have to go on and ask what is the effect of that what's the harm that that does

so you know it could be an overbearing arm overlooking harm a terracing harm

but we felt that none of those things are present and we looked looked around

the site to look at those things.

the site visit members did.

I'm slightly confused by that, just purely from the fact

that if there's a rule that says it's a metre,

because anything that's built in that size

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:57:54

is going to have an impact, then how do we just,

well, how is it thought that it is big and it is closer?

How, I don't see how that could be measured.

Yee Chung Hui - 2:58:16

So, the design of the extension, because of the tapered plot design, that is wider than

one metre gap as you can see from this slide here.

They've got a retention of 1 .3 metres from the first floor at the front.

Because of the tapered plot design, they can only retain a 0 .6 metre gap at the narrowest.

However, that has been taken into consideration in terms of the impact to the character of

the area and the street scene.

And part of that is they have at the same time also set back the first four site extension

and a lower and reduced gable end height.

So overall, it was considered the harm generated by non -compliance with the full one -metre

gap is not substantially harmful to the area. So what we're saying is that it

couldn't actually be reduced by another 400 mill because it wouldn't work with

the building is that correct? It would make the the rear area very narrow.

They've got the dressing area and they've got the bathroom and the front

hallway so potentially they can further reduce it but this has not been

presented in the amendments that they have submit.

Councillor Harris. With Chairman's indulgence could we move to these site

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:59:40

visits because all of these technical questions could be answered by the site

visit like that and I do appreciate how long you lot have sat here and if you

listen to interesting conversation I'm sure so if I could just expand with that

up if you can give me I've only got two more counsellors and then they will go

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:00:03

straight into the debate approach you you may be happy I've got somebody else

Cllr Arman Alam - 3:00:10

counsellor Mazazin before you thank you mr. chairman just a quick question that

Cllr Maz Hussain - 3:00:16

seems to be massive extensions and my other question was the window that's

been asked is any other extension in the area has been done like this before

because that seems to be a massive extension.

Yee Chung Hui - 3:00:35

If I can show you the second slide which is where the street scene this one yeah

well over the years there are changes made to a street scene so there are some

properties that have a closer separation to the boundary than the others.

And with the...I haven't checked exactly whether the other neighbours have got similar extensions,

but I don't think the development of a first -floor site extension is restricted because of this,

because the area has presented a range of drilling designs

and drilling types.

I hope I have answered that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now I'll open the debate to councillors

who did the site visits.

They were Councillor Arthur Hewitt,

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:01:36

Councillor Harris, Councillor West.

Councillor West.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Michael West - 3:01:45

I think unless you did pay a site visit to this property, you would look at these plans

and your instant reaction would be that this is far too close to the neighbour, and I can

understand why people would object to it.

What you can't get from these pictures is the impact of the slope on the road and the

difference in height between the two buildings, right?

for 226 to have an impact on the house to its left

is almost impossible in that the house on the left

sits on at least four foot higher ground to start with.

To build to extend 226 the other way

would certainly create an overlooking issue

in that it is considerably higher than its neighbour.

The design is very clever, very well done,

and I think they've taken into account as much as they possibly could

their effect on their neighbour.

They've even reduced the height of the ground floor single storey extension at the back

by putting in a flat roof, by getting rid of the sloping roof that exists

and they've put a flat roof in.

And the view from the rear window of the garage next door actually goes,

you look over the top of the ground floor extension.

So the impact has been minimised as much as possible.

And I honestly believe, and I hope that other site visitors

will back me up on this, that I thought they'd done

all that they possibly could.

It's obscure glaze, I don't see where there's

an over -looking issue, I don't see where there's

an overbearing issue, right?

And I wouldn't hesitate, quite frankly, to support the case officer in this case and

say, I agree with you 100%, we should approve this.

Thank you, Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much.

Councillor West couldn't have put it better.

Have you got that drawing?

That elevation?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:03:52

That's okay.

If we look at the bottom left -hand side, that lower patient there, that is the top of that

door and the top of that window, the lintels are below the lintel in the picture in the

street scene of the garage on the neighbouring property's window.

So there's a window in the side of the neighbouring property of the garage and that lintel below

that window is below the sill of that.

So in terms of overbearing, it just isn't.

Secondly, because Nextdoor haven't done anything

at first floor level, there's no overlooking.

It's, the whole thing is very, actually very sympathetic

to Nextdoor because Nextdoor hasn't changed.

I think we've got an example here of a young family

that's bought a house in a fantastic location

with a view which people should have come along

and seen the view because it's the best part of it.

And they want to stay in the house, bring up their children there.

They've probably got them set for the local school.

And so you can't move the location.

If you want to move, you couldn't buy that view anywhere else without probably paying

a lot more money for a bigger house, plus the stamp duty, et cetera, et cetera.

So they've done the best they could possibly do and been as sympathetic, I think, with

the neighbour as they can be.

and I would second the proposal by Councillor West that we should approve this.

I can understand why the neighbours brought it to committee, but I think realistically,

if you go there and you actually have a look on the outside, you'll see that there's not very much really to complain about.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:05:48

We've got a proposal in a second. I can't do it.

Well, the thing is when you have a proposal in a second, you can't do anything.

We'll override the proposal in a second.

No, they're outstanding, the proposal in a second.

They are active, but if we want to continue the debate, we can hear from the other.

Okay, would you like to say something Councillor Arthur -Heuwe?

Thank you, yeah I'd say having been on the site visit,

it is what Councillor Mike -Wes said,

it is one of those you really have to have seen it,

it is a pinch point, not the whole stretch,

and actually in fairness, the distance from the boundary

to the higher house is actually a reasonable width.

So it's not house on house.

There is some width from the boundary line

to the neighbouring house.

So there is a pinch point there,

but as was pointed out to me,

it's not a material reason to turn it down.

And I think the fact that it's not going to block light,

it's not going to affect privacy,

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 3:07:13

I totally appreciate why you might have 101 reasons

not to want that there,

but it's not ones that we can really argue on planning.

So I have full sympathy,

but I think actually it's a sympathetic bill

that if you went to the site,

you'd see it is a pinch point

rather than the whole extension impinging.

And also, I think the window downstairs

was in the garage that's in the neighbouring property.

the window was in a garage that didn't need planning permission or something.

So therefore it's not something that's necessarily something that we have to

consider in terms of loss of privacy.

But if the upgrade is of the planning is actually going to make those windows

non -openable and glazed,

I don't think we can consider some of the things that have come up as a reason

to knock it. So,

so whilst I fully sympathise and I fully understand we have no material reasons

here to turn it down. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I'm opening the debate.

Councillor Armand, you were…

Cllr Arman Alam - 3:08:18

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the members who conducted the site visit.

I've clearly learned quite a bit from what they've had to say.

I think some of the factors or things that have been mentioned are really factors that

we are required to take into consideration.

So Councillor Harris, I'm sure all of us would welcome the residents of the property

would want them to stay there forever. But unfortunately, it's not a factor that is within

our – I think within the remit that we have. It's not a factor that we ought to take into

consideration.

As I look at it, I mean, there clearly is a privacy concern, and that's why there's

a condition in place for one of the windows to be obscure. So it seems to me that there

is an issue. And what we haven't probably taken into consideration is the fact that

while a closed window, obscure closed window,

can to some extent satisfy those concerns.

It clearly means if somebody opens up the window,

you can continue to look outside

and therefore breach those privacy concerns again.

Over development, we think of that in the context

of larger properties and properties

where there's a significant extension taking place.

but it's really, I think, depends upon the circumstances

and the type of property.

And when one looks at this,

because of the angle of this property,

and simply because of the angle of this property,

it seems to me that this development

can potentially be referred to as an overdevelopment.

So I have concerns in respect of this application.

Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 3:10:06

I think just remind everyone that the windows are 1 .7 metres high so even

though they're glazed and some are unoperable, unopenable because that's in

the conditions, I think I'm personally having listened to the site visit

members I'm inclined to to support the application.

Any other committee members would like to say a word?

Councillor Conlon.

The reason I asked the technical questions of the first place Chairman was about the overbearing piece.

One of the slides you showed, I can't remember which one it was, but it clearly shows the four metre drop between the objector and the actual applicant.

I think if they were on the same level, I think you might have an issue.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:10:46

Because there's a height differential between the two sites, and again those slit windows you see on that thing there, 1 .7,

you're gonna be on tiptoes going can't actually see out of this thing, I can't even see out of it

and it's obscured as well. So I again would support the Office of Recommendation.

Thank you Chairman.

Anybody else? No? We have a proposal in the second. I forgot who the proposal was.

Was it Council Mike West and who was the second? Council Clive Harris. So I'm

putting it forward to the committee, those in favour of the proposal, please raise your

hands.

Raise them high.

Raise your hands high.

Two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Can I ask the members in the gallery to control themselves, please, and those against?

Abstentions?

Two.

And that's carried.

Thank you.

6 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Item 6 is the next day, next meeting, which is on the 26th of August at 6 .30 p .m.

Item 7 is site members for the 25th of August.

Can I have a show of hands for that please?

No?

25th is a Tuesday.

Three, thank you.

Brilliant.

I haven't had the chance to say this

because I've been ill and not been at the meeting.

I'd like to thank Councillor Mark Turner as previous Chairman.

You did a wonderful job, Mark, and I thank all the committee members from the previous

committee along with me would like to thank you for that.

Thank you, Mark.

I call this meeting – oh, thank you to the officers in attendance, and I call this meeting

to a close.

Thank you and good night.

Cllr Arman Alam

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt

Labour Party

View profile

Mr Leslie Ashton

Democratic Services Officer

Buckinghamshire Council

View profile

Ms. Lucy Bellinger

View profile

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Imran Hussain

Wycombe Independent

View profile

Cllr Maz Hussain

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

Conservative

View profile

Mr Chris Steuart

View profile

Cllr Mark Turner

Independent

View profile

Cllr Matthew Walsh

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Julia Wassell

Wycombe Independent

View profile

Cllr Michael West

Liberal Democrats

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeWednesday, 29th July 2026 at 6:30pm

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:00

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:01:43

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:47

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Imran Hussain - 0:01:57

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:02:09

Planning Applications

4 PL/25/4603/FA Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, Buckinghamshire HP27 9SF

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:02:40

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:04:32

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:04:39

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:05:06

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:05:36

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:06:13

Cllr Arman Alam - 0:06:27

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:06:53

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:07:20

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:08:04

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:08:19

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:19:03

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:19:50

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:22:41

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:22:50

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:23:09

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:24:00

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:24:18

Public Speaker - 0:24:27

Cllr Michael West - 0:24:37

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:24:56

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:25:15

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:25:25

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:26:08

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:26:30

Public Speaker - 0:26:38

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:29:46

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:29:53

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:30:51

Public Speaker - 0:30:59

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:33:59

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:34:05

Public Speaker - 0:34:32

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:35:38

Public Speaker - 0:35:46

Public Speakers - 0:35:53

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:39:01

Public Speaker - 0:39:34

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:42:35

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:42:42

Public Speaker - 0:43:20

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:43:32

Public Speaker - 0:43:37

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:43:40

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:43:43

Public Speaker - 0:43:51

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:44:04

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:44:18

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:45:07

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:46:41

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:47:51

Mr Chris Steuart - 0:51:00

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:52:05

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 0:52:09

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:52:44

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:53:44

Cllr Michael West - 0:53:50

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 0:55:36

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:59:03

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:59:04

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:59:10

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:59:14

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:02:54

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:08

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:05:36

Mr Chris Steuart - 1:06:12

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:07:08

Ms. Lucy Bellinger - 1:07:11

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 29th July 2026 at 6:30pm