Interactive webcast player

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 19th August 2026 at 2:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  3. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  4. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  5. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Laura Lee Briggs - Planning Solicitor
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Laura Lee Briggs - Planning Solicitor
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  4. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  5. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  6. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  7. Cllr Raj Khan
  8. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  9. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  10. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  11. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  12. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  13. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  14. Cllr Frank Mahon
  15. Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  17. Cllr Raj Khan
  18. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  19. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  20. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  21. Cllr Chris Poll
  22. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  23. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  24. Webcast Finished

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00
Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
Welcome to Central North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee.
This committee, as you well aware, is webcast and if anyone does not want to be included
in the webcast, please make yourselves known to our clerk.
Can I also remind everyone to turn their mobile phones off and make sure it's on silent.
and could I confirm that members of the press are here?
No?
You're not a member of the press.
Okay, thank you.
That was useful.
Public speaking, we have no public speaking today,
and therefore that does not need to be looked at.
For the benefit of people watching this, if they are,
The agenda has had to be changed for a number of reasons.
And I would just like to go through those reasons with you.
The application that we had for Cobhaugh Road in Newton Longville,
I've decided that we would withdraw the application because of the impact it's having on the local community.
And I think you with me, we send our condolences to the member that lost his life, unfortunately,
and also to commend the amount of work that has gone and taken place within the parish
and the locality to help people who have been displaced.
So we will wing that application to committee at a later date.
If I can then go to the next application that has been withdrawn is one for Bearden.
This is in Bannits Way, Bearden.
On Monday the government issued a new NPPF and it became law that day and therefore it
it is necessary that all applications
currently under consideration offers us
therefore need to review the reports
and recommendation to ensure your accuracy
reflects the revised national policy position.
In some cases this exercise will be
relatively straightforward and have no effect at all
on the recommendation.
Other areas, particularly where the revised MPPF
The UNF introduces new policies, tests, requirements,
and weighting, or more detailed reassessments
may be necessary, and it is important that the decisions
are based on the new up -to -date national policy framework
available at the time a decision is taken.
So therefore, we have withdrawn the Bearden application,
which will be brought back in the future.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:03:12
Thank you for that chair. I suppose there being a vice note to members in due course on the changes so we can understand how we operate within them.
Because if it was substantial enough that we didn't do the application I suspect it's substantial enough that we need to understand them changes.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:31
Indeed it will and we will, the actual changes to it are quite extensive and therefore the
officers need time to assimilate it all and once that has been done then we will have
a training session on it because there's a number of points that have been, have been
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:03:52
Just lastly, Chair, through your kind offices, can we, officers, send us the link to it so
we can read it at leisure in the summer while we're closing the poll?
Yes, it's on the Government's website.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:04:06
Rather than have to go and search for it, could we have the link, please?
If you go on NPPF Changes, it pops up on the Government's website.
It's a large document and there's lots of changes for it.
Now that leaves us one final application
which we're due to hear today.
And this is from Austin Road at Granborough.
This is an application by a member
and therefore our current council constitution
prevents members from speaking at public meeting,
making a presentation to us.
And therefore for that reason,
the members application that member will not be attending this meeting because
that is what the Constitution says and that's what we need to hear for here to
hear it so those are the three so we will only be looking at the one
application this afternoon I'll return to the agenda have we any apologies yes

1 Apologies

Just two apologies from Councillor Gorman and Councillor Munger.
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:05:08
Thank you.

2 Minutes

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:05:11
College, can I have your agreement to the minutes of the meeting on the 22nd of July?
Agree.
Thank you.

3 Declarations of Interest

Are there any declarations of interest?
Laura Lee Briggs - Planning Solicitor - 0:05:39
I would just acknowledge that all of you know the local member whose application is coming forward, but I'm assuming all of you have an open mind despite knowing this person personally.
Yeah, I think that's fair.
Can you please repeat that one?
Yes, I will. I'm sorry.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:05:50
Laura Lee Briggs - Planning Solicitor - 0:05:54
I was just going to note for all of you that of course the name of the applicant will be familiar to all of you because you know this person and they are a member of this committee.
and just to confirm that in spite of your personal having known this person
personally that you still have an open mind you've come to this committee with
an open mind and are able to determine this application. Yes. So that's all the

4 PL/26/04375/FA - Jersey Farm House, Marston Road, Granborough, Buckinghamshire, MK18 3NP

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:06:21
declarations of interest and therefore can we go to item 4 on the agenda which
which is the application PL 2604375,
full application for Jersey Farmhouse.
I call upon the officer now to present it.
Thank you, Chairman.
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:06:44
So the address of the site is Jersey Farmhouse,
Marston Road, Granborough.
And the application seeks full planning commission
retrospectively for the change of use from the garage
to an independent residential dwelling.
So yeah, this application is being referred to the central and north Buckinghamshire area
planning committee as the applicant is a ward councillor for Buckinghamshire council and
therefore for the sake of transparency, the application is being determined by the relevant
planning committee.
So the application site relates to the building directly to the south east of Jersey farmhouse,
which is located within the farmhouse's existing residential curtilage.
Jersey Farmhouse existing dwelling on site is a two -storey brick built dwelling with half -hipped
Roof and the application building has a lawful use of the garage and is a single -storey
brick -built building with a half -hipped roof
As the application is retrospective the works to change the use of the building have already taken place
and the building therefore has
UPC's UPVC windows in the front and rear elevations
and the site would utilise existing access onto Marston Road, which already serves Jersey Farmhouse.
So the application site is located within the open countryside south of Granborough with equestrian and agricultural development to the south.
Directly to the north of the site is a residential dwelling, Jersey Farmhouse.
The only real constraint on the site is that it is located within an amber -grate crested newt's impact risk zone.
However, given the nature of the proposal, which is retrospective
and which primarily relates to the change of use
of an existing building, it's considered
that there is not a reasonable likelihood of protected species
or priority habitats, including great crested newts,
having been affected by the development.
So this slide shows a site plan that was submitted
in support of the application.
The application building is outlined in red
and the wider site, which includes the entirety of the residential curtledge of Jersey Farmhouse,
has also been outlined on the plan in a darker colour.
So the site plan labels the building that is the subject of this application as an annex.
However, officers can confirm, following a view of the planning history of the site,
that the lawful use of the building is of the garage,
and that permission has not been granted for the building to be used as an annex at any point.
The site plan also shows the parking area to the front of the buildings.
and indicates that there would be two parking spaces
to the front of the existing dwelling
and then two parking spaces to the front of the new dwelling.
This slide shows the floor plan for the new dwelling
and the new dwelling would have one bedroom,
a bathroom, living area, dining area and kitchen.
And then these are the elevation plans
that have been submitted in support of the application.
There are windows in the front and rear elevations of the building.
And then the following slides show a selection of photographs of the site.
And then this slide just shows the front of the site with the existing farmhouse on the left
and then the application building on the right.
And then you can see the existing access to the site in the foreground.
Excuse me.
You can't say I can't.
No, you're not filming.
Are you filming?
And then on this slide you can see a close up photograph of the front elevation of the
building and then the parking area in the foreground.
And then this is just the rear elevation of the building.
This photograph shows the parking area of the application building and the existing
farmhouse.
And then this photograph shows the garden areas to the rear of both the application building and the existing farmhouse.
And as you can see there's currently no boundary treatment dividing the rear garden areas of the two properties.
And as such condition has been recommended to secure details of any proposed boundary treatments just to ensure that they would be appropriate within this open countryside location.
So the new national planning policy framework was published earlier in the week.
However, the new MPPF would not materially change officer's recommendation to approve
the application.
The application is considered to be policy compliant as set out within the committee
report and therefore the officer's recommendation is that the application is approved, subject
to the conditions set out at the end of the committee report.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:11:35
Thank you very much. As I said at the start there's no speakers today so we'll go straight
into any technical questions anyone may have. Councillor Stott.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:11:48
Thank you chair. Noting, can I ask correctly?
Please pull the mic.
Noting as officer quite rightly said this is a
retrospective application but we consider retrospective applications as
normal applications. Could the officer give a bit more grounds around
47 -48 which Human Rights Equality Act and the those sections in sections to the
application because I found them quite useful.
I just want a bit of explanation how they applied to this application
because, well, there was, why they were included and they're quite strong inclusions
in your recommendation to improve because you notedly put them above the approval.
Thank you.
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:12:46
I think we were just sort of in assessing the application we have considered the human
rights act and the equality act which is why those two bits are included within the committee
report but just in assessing the application we've taken account of both of those bits of legislation.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:13:14
So through you Chair, there is no Pacific apart from the normals and qualities out there
is no Pacific considerations in the sense.
And thank you Raj.
There was no specific other bearings in relation
to the Equality Act which were necessary other than the ones
that you stated within your report.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
OK, Councillor Carlu.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:13:38
Yeah, thank you.
I mean, it's a very good report.
Thank you for the report.
It's quite self -explanatory.
The question I've got is if this was not a member of this council, would this be in front of us today?
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:13:57
As I see that due diligence was given, and I understand obviously due to our constitution that we have to bring it here,
but from an officer's point of view, if this was just a member of the public and this came through,
Am I right in saying that this would have gone through under delegated powers?
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:14:21
Yes, you're correct. There's no other reason for it to come other than
Council
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:14:29
Horn guys do some first. Can I just cheque on a couple of?
points you've got
removal of permitted development
Is that relying upon?
just for the hedge row and the gateway or is it general?
So the removal of permitted development rights
specifically is the part in the GPDO
that relates to sort of boundary treatments
and means of enclosure.
So it's sort of in terms of like if we wouldn't want
the site to be divided up by sort of like harsh,
like you know, like close border fencing or something
because it's such a rural location.
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:15:05
And obviously, as I said, they haven't sort of divided
the garden or the front at the moment so that's why that condition has been imposed.
But anything other in permitted development is okay?
Yep.
Now I'm really interested in this next one.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:15:19
You've got a bicycle.
Within three months of the date of permission, a covered secure cycle parking for at least one bicycle?
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:15:39
Yeah, so that because it's a change of use to a new dwelling we're applying the normal standards that we would apply to any new dwelling
And in Appendix B, if about it requires any single new dwelling to have at least space for one cycle
I've never seen it before. Yeah, that's what made me question it
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:15:55
Councillor Mahone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:16:03
Do we know when the conversion happened, roughly?
It's a good material.
Well, the point I'm trying to get to here is when the conversion was done, was it done under PD?
Anna Shah - Senior Planning Officer - 0:16:19
So, no. I don't know exactly when it was done, but it was not done under PD because...
So, it was originally and lawfully a garage.
Yes.
And you can't, there's no PD rights to change a gadget to an annex or a dwelling.
So it wasn't done under PD, because it can't have been.
Okay.
You okay?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:16:43
Okay.
Counsellor Anderson, I'm sorry you're late.
you can participate in it, but you can't vote.
Because when we come to the end of it,
because you haven't heard the whole case.
Okay?
No further technical questions?
Okay, can we then go to open debate?
Councillor Colle.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:17:19
Again, I'd like to echo the excellent work
that's done by offices and very diligent.
I seem to have a little problem.
It's a constitutional issue, and I
accept that we have to respect the Constitution.
But I think it's giving extra, extra scrutiny upon members
who are, we are members of the residents here of Bakimshir,
too.
So the pressures they have to go through doing something
that is absolutely legitimate to do, and rightly they've done, one of our members of course.
I think it's wasting officers' time, it's wasting the public's time, it's costing us
money when we trust our officers and they've done a sterling work.
And I think, you know, to make a debate out of something that is very straightforward,
If this was a member of the public and Joe Smith had applied, this would have been not
here in front of us today. I am basically saying that I move the officer's recommendation
because I don't feel there's anything untoward in this that should just purely be here to
excite a debate for the sake of exciting a debate. And if I could change the constitution,
I would love to change the constitution and I appreciate chair that we won't be able to do it today
but in my opinion this waste of taxpayers money to
Have this in place because we have a constitution in place either. We have faith in our offices or we don't I
Certainly have faith in our offices
And I think the office's recommendation is absolutely right and I'd like to move the officers recommendation today
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:19:16
I understand your point entirely and the only way it can be dealt with is through a select
committee recommendation.
We need to do that on another time, another date, not today.
Just a moment, hang on.
There's obviously a need for transparency for the people who are seeing the way we work
because although it's a member today, it could be the director or it could be the CEO.
So that's where it is.
Have I got a seconder for that proposal?
I think Councillor Stachry got up first.
I'll speak to seconder here.
I second it in respect of the current constitution.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:20:04
I respect it in the fact that we have to be upfront in clarity
And when dealing with a member's application, the Constitution is remarkably clear that
a member's application has to be determined and an officer and any employee of the Council.
The reason that is done is that the public feel that there is no favouritism, no bias
and no change to that.
To change that in the Constitution would be probably against local government law and
would probably be a major concern.
So to challenge it and discuss that, this member is having a
retrospective application in the grounds that it's done.
And I'm very happy to second the proposal to why I recognise
that I can't change the law of the land from this committee.
And to say anything else about the application, I'm sure had it
even been dealt with under, it could not be dealt with under
delegated powers because it's a member of the council and it
would have had to come to this committee in any case.
So on that face I'm very happy to second it because I don't think there's anything in the report that's against it.
Thank you.
Councillor Powell.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:21:09
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:21:12
Yeah, Chairman we can go round the houses debate in law of the land and everything else.
We've had a proposer and a seconder. I move we go to the vote.
Okay.
Councillor Connell.
I move to go to the vote.
I second.
Okay.
No further comments?
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:21:26
We'll go to the vote.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:21:27
We have a recommendation before us with no changes to the recommendation.
to go with the officer's recommendation.
All those in favour, please show.
That's unanimous, Chairman.
None against.
There won't be.
Okay, thank you very much.
All I can say is thank you for your time this afternoon.
I know it was a changed agenda, but it was important.
and thank you for attending and please remain seated.
I'll go ahead.