West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 26 August 2026, 6:30pm

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 26th August 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Mrs Elly Cook
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

4 PL/25/5130/FA - Glory Park, Glory Park Avenue, Wooburn Green

Share this agenda point

Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Stuart Wilson
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speaker
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speaker
Cllr Matthew Hind
Public Speaker
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Public Speaker
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Shade Adoh
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Shade Adoh
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Mark Turner
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

5 PL/26/00975/FA - 8-9 Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NJ

Share this agenda point

Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Matthew Hind
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Shade Adoh
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Shade Adoh
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Ms. Heather Smith
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Ms. Heather Smith
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speakers
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

6 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

7 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:00

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the West Buckinghamshire Area Planning

Committee.

I am Councillor Sarfraz Raja and I'm the chairman of the meeting.

I have a couple of housekeeping items.

For your information this meeting is being webcast.

By entering the chamber you have consented to being filmed as part of the webcast.

If any member of the public does not wish to have their images captured please inform

the committee clerk. We will be happy to assist you in finding a suitable seating

position that is outside the area of being filmed. In event of an emergency

the fire exit is located at the rear of the chamber. Please follow me when I'm

evacuating the building. We will be assembling outside across the bridge to

the left of the council building. Item one is agenda item agenda one is

1 Apologies for Absence

apologies for absence thank you Tim and we've had apologies from Councillor Maz

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:01:04

Hussain and Councillor Mike West Councillor Matthew hind is substituting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:13

for Councillor Mike West I think this is another one item two are there any

2 Declarations of Interest

declares declarations of interest thank you

agenda item three minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday the

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

29th of July 2026.

If anyone is happy, if everyone is happy with the minutes,

I will sign them.

Agreed?

Thank you.

Now we move on to item four,

application number PL stroke 25 stroke 5130FA,

4 PL/25/5130/FA - Glory Park, Glory Park Avenue, Wooburn Green

Glory Park, Glory Park Avenue, Woburn Green.

I'd like to hand over to Miss Jenny Irons,

who is introducing this item.

Thank you Chairman, good evening.

So this application is for a site within Glory Park

and it is for the construction of a pre -delivery

Ms. Jenny Ion - 0:02:06

and inspection centre, incorporating a workshop,

offices, photographic studio, valet facilities,

together with associated open storage

for passenger cars and commercial vehicles,

ancillary infrastructure, including access and circulation,

with landscaping boundary treatment and lighting.

So I would draw your attention to the update sheet.

There is a section regarding the new MPPF,

which was published after the report was published.

It draws attention to relevant policies within the MPPF

and those which members should be mindful of

when making a decision.

There is also additional comments attached to the update

from the Paper Mill Close Residents Association,

and there are also some minor adjustments to conditions

and to informatives to again reflect the change

to the MPPF.

So the application itself, the site comprises

an area of 2 .64 hectares and within Glory Park.

It was formerly part of the Glory Mill Paper Mill site,

the rest of which has been redeveloped

over the last 25 years for a mixture of housing

and employment uses.

The site is designated as a strategic employment site

in the local plan. The site comprises of two main parcels of land, one at the east side of the River

Wye and Glory Park Avenue and the other on the west side of the river surrounded on two sides

by a smaller river known as the Glory Mill Loop and adjacent to Watery Lane. The development

includes the erection of one large building incorporating the workshop offices and photographic

studio and valet facilities and together with ancillary structures, a scanner arch and security

kiosk and bin store on the eastern parcel of land. The scheme also includes storage of vehicles on

both parcels with the western parcel used entirely for the storage of vehicles. Each parcel would use

existing access points but there is an additional access from Waltree Lane onto the western parcel

which will be stocked up as part of the application. The proposals require some levelling of the land

including removal of the existing bund and spoiled. The site will be secured by

a 2 .4 metre high green mesh fence and additional tree planting and landscaping

is proposed along with enhancements to the river corridor. If we could now look

at the plans. So the plan up in front of you is the proposed site plan and you

can see the site is an L shape there and you can see the parcel to the east

with the building on it and the parcel to the west which would just be for the

storage of cars and you can see the blue in the middle is the river Y running through

the site and then the smaller river running around the western parcel of land.

Next plan please.

So this is the floor plan for the main building.

Vehicles would be driven into the building at the left hand end of the building and they

would be worked on within the building and exit at the right hand end.

If you can go to the next one, please.

There is a small area of first floor within the building.

You can see there, sort of the bottom left -hand corner, which is for offices and staff facilities.

Next slide.

This is the roof plan.

You can see there are a number of roof lights within the roof, and the area without roof

lights would be available for the installation of solar panels.

Next one.

This is some of the elevations. The top one is the front elevation which would face the

road and the one at the bottom is the side elevation which would face to the north west.

The top plan there is the rear elevation which faces the back of the site and then the bottom

one is the elevation which faces towards the properties in Old Paper Mill Close.

Next one. These are the sections through the site. You can see that the red line there

with existing levels. You can see there is some removal of the bund on the bottom right -hand

plan and you can also see there's some variation in ground levels which have to be levelled for

the proposed use. Next slide. That's looking through in the opposite direction. It gives

you an idea if you look at the top plan to the left the levels rising up behind

the building. Next one. This is a little small security

kiosk and there would be one on each of the two parcels of land. Next one. This is

the scanner arch which vehicles will pass through when they arrive at the

site and this cheques them for what work may need to be done on them. Next one.

This is the floor plan of the bin store which is going to be provided within the site and

the next plan shows you the elevations. This will be a timber structure or enclosure.

That's finally the site overview plan. I think we've got landscaping plans next.

So this is the western parcel. There will be some additional planting along the river

corridor and the planting of a hedge.

Next one.

This is the area around the proposed building.

Again, more planting around the boundaries, a little bit

within the river corridor as well.

And the final landscape plan is the conservation area

end of the site, the northwest end of the eastern parcel.

Again, additional planting in that part of the site.

I think we now take us on to the photographs.

There are quite a few photographs, it's quite a big site, so I'll take you through as swiftly

as I can but to give you a flavour of the area we're talking about. So this is the roundabout,

which is the entrance to Glory Park Avenue and the green hoarding you can see there is

surrounding the corner of the western parcel and you can just see beyond that some offices which

were part of the earlier development on the Glory Mill site. Next please. So this is part of the

We're looking up Glory Park Avenue towards the eastern parcel.

Next please.

That's also you can see the Glory Mill Loop there with the pedestrian bridge.

We're looking up Glory Park Avenue towards the other part of the site.

Next please.

So this is the entrance into the eastern parcel.

At the moment it's secured by the concrete to stop unauthorised vehicle access.

but you can see there the bridge that goes over the river wide to take you into that

eastern parcel and you can see the land rising up there at the back.

Next parcel, photograph again, that's a similar view but that's taken in November so you can

see the difference between screening in summer and winter.

Next one please.

So this is again a view across the eastern parcel.

you can see across we're stood on the bridge there at the moment.

Next one please.

So this is the bridge that you can see in the river Wye,

so it gives you an idea of what the bridge looks like from the side.

Next one please.

And this is looking from where you've gone over the river towards the eastern parcel

and it's looking towards the watery lane conservation area direction in the north of the site.

This is the river between the eastern parcel and the offices which have already been developed

on an earlier phase of the development.

This is the edge of the site which joins the houses in Old Paper Mill Close.

Next one, again that's the rear of the properties that face towards the site,

from Old Paper Mill Close and the next one, similar.

The next one please.

So this is the rear boundary of that eastern parcel, you can see there the way the levels climb up.

There's a public footpath that runs along the boundary of the site, outside the site.

Next one please.

So this is a long view looking back towards Old Paper Mill Close.

and another one and this is a similar view taken in in about November when

the trees are not in leaf. Next please. That's also looking to that the corner

of the site and you can see Old Paper Mill close there and also Old Moor Lane are

the properties that you can see just to the left. Next one and that's looking

again across the site and you can see again the Old Moor Lane properties at

the back of the site.

So that's the similar view but in summer.

This is looking more towards the conservation area end of the site.

You can see the bund there that would have to be removed.

That's also looking towards the conservation area.

You can just see the buildings in the distance there.

And similar views in winter.

And the next.

And that's a similar corner of the site again.

Next one.

So this is the access into the western parcel.

You can see the bridge there over the Glory Mill loop.

Next one.

This is taken from within that western parcel and you can see some of the offices there

to the left in the glory park and you can see the view across up to the hills

if you're looking towards sort of Flacoyhay's direction. And the next one.

And that's similarly looking across the parcel towards Old Watery Lane and again.

And that's the offices that I referred to earlier that are adjacent to this

western parcel of land. Next one. That's the access which will be stopped up onto

old watery lane you can see the property there is on the opposite side of old watery lane

or watery lane I should say.

And then that's looking in the reverse direction up towards the eastern parcel with those offices

again in shot.

That's the boundary to watery lane, you can see there's existing trees along that boundary

at their present.

That is the Glory Mill Loop adjacent to Glory Park Avenue and the western parcel of the

site.

Next, I think again that's a similar boundary of that parcel.

I think we've got one more.

Looking down Glory Park Avenue, I think that's the last one.

One more, that's again the loop and you can see the road between the east and the west

parcels.

The key issues are set out for you in the report on pages 42 to 51.

They are the proposed employment use of the site, the design of the development, the impact

of the proposal on the amenity of existing residents, access, highway safety and parking

provision, the impact on the setting of the adjacent conservation area, surface water

drainage, the impact on ecology, the river corridor and achieving biodiversity net gain,

and landscaping and provision of canopy cover within the development.

The recommendation is that the committee should be minded to grant permission, subject to

a Section 106 planning obligation to secure a travel plan, and to the conditions set out

in the report on pages 20 to 30 as amended in the update sheet.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:14:09

Thank you. Thank you, Jenny. We have public speaking on this item. The names I have on

the list are Councillor Stuart Wilson, Gerard Carr for the objectors, Ewan Miller for the

applicant. So Councillor Stuart Wilson, would you like to start? You've got three minutes.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:14:30

Thank you.

On behalf of all the ward members, we stand by the residents of Old Paper Mill Close in

their strong concerns.

Please ensure you read their comments.

This application is the least desirable proposal for residents, elected representatives, neighbouring

businesses and the landowner.

Over many years we have all advocated for the land to be converted to residential use

as the land lays derelict after many failed attempts to find a viable employment use as

the planning history in the officer's report demonstrates.

Only intransigence of Wycombe District Council and Buckinghamshire Council has prevented

that.

At the site's engagement stage of the new Buckinghamshire Local Plan an overprovision

of 200 hectares of employment land was identified.

We want to allocate housing to brownfield sites first.

We made vigorous verbal and written representations for this land to be used for housing particularly affordable housing in our area

BAM the landowner told us last year that this application was their last attempt to salvage something from this site

We met with BAM this year to try to convince them to give residential one more shot quite frankly the planning team had broken them

So we have an application tonight that fails to deliver meaningful new employment

create substantial and unknown nuisance for residents and businesses that goes

way beyond the existing office use on glory park and infringes beyond

acceptable limits on precious chalk stream water courses with substantial

pollution risk. How on earth can any of that make sense?

Remember brown before green members? We need residential use on brownfield

sites particularly affordable housing. This is and has always been a perfect

location. We have an excess of employment sites. This site is not the efficient use

of employment land envisaged when it was originally designated. Remember the council motion we

recently passed to protect chalk streams. We must protect our natural environment. It

is not acceptable to infringe into the buffers of chalk stream watercourses or choose to

stand vast quantities of vehicles nearby. We must protect our built environment. Office

buildings operating during normal working hours are one thing. Continuous

24 -7 operations with security lighting and site noise as well as vast vehicle

transporters at all times of the day on our busy main roads and side roads is

something else. Not only the residents but even the adjoining office based

businesses are particularly concerned. Please listen to the residents elected

representatives and the landowner who all want something far more worthwhile

for the community and the county. Refuse this application on its failure to

deliver efficient use of employment land, failure to uphold national and local

protection to watercourses and the inevitable nuisance to residents and

businesses. Demand this site is reclassified to be included in our

brown before green list for residential now.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:17:30

Do committee members have any questions for clarification of the

Councillor Stuart Wilson.

No?

No, thank you.

We'll move on to the objector.

I'm speaking as the parish council.

Okay.

Over to you again.

Thank you.

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:17:52

Good evening again.

I'm speaking on behalf of Reuben

and Bournham Parish Council as vice chairman

and member of the Planning Highways and Lighting Committee.

Members of the Parish Council Planning Committee

had the opportunity to meet with BAM, the landowner, through their community engagement

programme last year and were pleased to see that an attempt was being made to bring the

derelict land back into use. Following a representation from residents of Old Paper Mill Close adjoining

the proposed site at the rear, the Parish Council requested that the application be called into this

planning committee to ensure that the residents' concerns were heard. The Parish Council strongly

encourage you to read the Old Paper Mill Close concerns thoroughly. The Parish Council agreed

with residents that the security operation of this site 24 -7, 365 days a year, the extended

delivery and vehicle movement times and the associated vehicle refurbishment noise, paint

shop odour, all represent a significant nuisance to those living right next to the site. The

proposed use is totally out of keeping with the office developments elsewhere on Glory

Park, but we know that BAM have found it impossible to find a similar suitable and financially

viable employment use. With regard to on -site employee parking, the Parish Council is already

having to invest tens of thousands of pounds in installing double yellow lines all along

Watery Lane to prevent existing Glory Park employee overflow parking beyond the permitted

planning consent for the large office building next door. At what point might City Gate sacrifice

employee parking for inventory and create employee parking overspill as happens at another

city gate site only a mile away in Wubon in contravention of its planning

consent. The local planning authority repeatedly fails to monitor consented

employee parking and travel plans. Local communities and parish councils have to

pick up the cost. The parish council requests that the planning committee

seriously consider the issues raised. If the committee is still minded to approve

the application we ask that you ensure all possible measures are taken to

restrict the working times to reasonable, daytime working only, and that all light,

noise and odour impact is absolutely minimised to have no impact on residents.

Finally, the river -wide chalk stream and its various tributaries is one of the defining

characteristics of our 2025 and 2026 award -winning Butts Best Kept Village. We are grateful for

the work already undertaken by BAM to improve the watercourse, allowing any planning application

to infringe on the watercourse buffer is nevertheless unacceptable. All Buckinghamshire Council

has passed a motion last November requiring strong action on protecting chalk streams,

including buffers. Please understand that this is better than a derelict site, but this

application is full of compromises and this committee must not compromise planning policy

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:20:48

all the community. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for clarification? Committee members?

No? Thank you. We move on to Jared Kerr, one of the objectors. You have three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:21:04

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. My name is Jared Kerr. I represent the Church

Public Speaker - 0:21:07

of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. The church is an occupier of the neighbouring

office building located immediately next to this application site. Our offices

serve as the administrative headquarters of the church in the UK and Northern

Europe. We greatly value our current location at Glory Park. Our concern is

that the proposed use could undermine the qualities that make this such a

successful office location. We recognise that this vacant site should be brought

into productive use. Our objection is not to development in principle, it is to the scale,

nature and intensity of this particular operation and the effect it could have on existing businesses

and the surrounding area. Our first concern is parking and highway safety. The proposed

centre would employ 48 people but provide only 31 staff parking spaces. Existing occupiers already

experience overspill parking within phase one of Glory Park and along

Watery Lane as shown in the photographs we have submitted with our objection. If

the proposed parking proves inadequate the practical consequences will fall on

existing office occupiers and nearby residents. Our second concern is amenity.

The proposed operation includes activities that could affect

neighbouring occupiers through noise, vibration, disturbance and light pollution, particularly

during early mornings and evenings.

Which leads to our final concern, which is the importance of local employment. This site

is within a strategic employment area and already benefits from high quality office

development. High quality offices can provide a significant number and range of local jobs,

support nearby businesses and services and contribute to the long -term strength of the local economy.

By comparison, this proposal would use a substantial part of the site for open vehicle storage,

while creating only 48 jobs.

This appears to be a relatively low level of employment for such an important and sizeable allocated employment site.

We respectfully ask the committee to refuse the application or defer its determination for a members site visit and further assessment of parking, highway safety, amenity and local employment benefits.

If permission is granted, we request robust and enforceable controls covering parking,

transporter movements, operating hours, external activities, lighting and noise.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:23:58

Committee members, any points for clarification?

Thank you.

Then we move on to Ewan Miller, the applicant.

you have three minutes. Good evening my name is Ewan Miller I'm the Managing

Public Speaker - 0:24:13

Director of BAM properties who own the Glory Park site. Thank you for the

opportunity to speak. BAM have been the owner of the site for 20 years now with

their original proposals being to develop it as an office park. With the

change in demand that use has not been viable in this location for some

considerable time. As you're all aware in both 2014 and 2017 we made applications

for residential use of the site as a means of completing it. Both applications were refused

and subsequently dismissed at appeal. I say this to explain that we listened and took

on board that the council wanted to see this site kept for employment use with the Regulation

19 draught local plan for Buckinghamshire allocating it as an employment site. As part of those

appeal processes the council itself recognised that office use was not viable and proposed

that 10 ,000 square metres of industrial sheds could be built on the site and

would be policy compliant. Again we listened to what the council stated

could be the supported use. In bringing forward this application in partnership

with City Gate, the proposed end -user, we believe it will result in a land use

that meets policy, will create around 50 jobs, a significantly lower impact than

the industrial scheme the council said they would support with a building of

around 1400 square metres and has been thoughtfully designed in line with a key

bit of further listening, which was taking on board what our residential neighbours

might feel about our plans. They've lived next to this vacant site

for some considerable time now, and it was important to BAM we submitted

plans that would be as low impact on them as possible.

From having attended the public exhibition myself last year,

the feedback was overwhelmingly positive for our plans,

which led to only five objections and indeed two letters in support. We are

bringing forward a low -impact policy compliant employment led scheme that

with careful landscaping and other control measures including an

operational management plan will mean completion of the development in a way

that will create the least impact. We remain grateful to our neighbours for

the positive manner in which they engaged with our plans. In terms of other

key considerations delivery of employment balanced with highway impact

and impact on the River Wye and biodiversity this scheme will result in

far less impact from a vehicle movements perspective than the extant office

consent. Through extensive and positive engagement with the EA and the Council's

own ecology officers we've agreed a package of further substantial

enhancements to the River Wye which will be fully designed with their

collaboration and to the site itself. In conclusion you've heard me talk a lot

about listening and this is what we have done in bringing forward our application.

As a responsible developer we believe that these plans offer the best

opportunity to create employment, bring a brownfield site back into use and offer

impactful environmental improvement. Thank you. Thank you. Any points for

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:27:22

clarification committee members.

Council Mark Turner.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:27:29

Thanks, Mr. Miller.

Can I just ask a couple of questions of clarification

about the cars in and out that you were mentioning.

It says in the documents that there's up to seven

transporters a day with eight to 12 cars aboard.

So that's between 100 and 144 cars coming in.

Is that gonna be every day?

We're just roughly trying to work that out in comparison with the number of cars that

will be in and out of the production unit. So for instance you've got roundabout a capacity

within the building of about 29 cars within the PDI facility. How quickly do they go in

and go out? So for instance if you've got seven transporters are some of those bringing

cars in and some taking them out or is it literally roughly that amount of cars

lightly per day and that's the amount going through the facility. Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:28:32

So dealing with the vehicle movements yes we are talking about seven

transporter movements a day obviously in terms of efficiency the plan would be

that to minimise those movements and the the transporters would be used to bring

both cars on and take cars off the site as well so we're not envisaging that

we'd be bringing cars on and leaving where we were City Gate can avoid you

know transporters leaving empty because that would obviously potentially involve

another movement so the plan is very much in terms of the operational plan to

to minimise the number of movements and that's why we're talking about seven

movements. In terms of the throughput to the centre itself and I think that's

difficult for me to quantify primarily because the building itself has different purposes.

So it's a repair centre, it's also a photographic studio and again I suppose depending on the

type of repair and the nature of that repair, particular vehicles may be in the unit for

longer periods than other vehicles. So I think it would be difficult for me to give a figure

exactly of how many individual movements in and out the building itself per day would be achieved.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:30:01

Why the west side for the building and not the east side? Question one. Because both seem capable

of you could have equally built the processing operation on the east side as against the

west side or as against the east side so get my directions right and secondly how many

cars do you think the plan is to have stored there eventually not initially but eventually

Public Speaker - 0:30:37

So in terms of the design of the scheme, the reason the building is in the rear plot was

to minimise, first of all, the visual impact on the scheme when you were looking at it

so that when you're standing at the entrance to Glory Park, you will have the offices on

the right, you will have a lot of significant landscaping on the left, the building is going

to be up at the back of the site tucked away as far as possible, away from the watery lane,

etc. In terms of car parking, the maximum number of spaces that's in Visi's is 550.

So if it was operating at capacity, that would be the number of spaces.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:31:26

A lot of cars staying, not going in and going out, that's you know,

at 100 a day, that's from, yeah, okay.

So it was purely visual, the visual look

of where the processing operation would be

from the rest of the park.

So rather than having it close to where the other offices

are, it was felt that it would be, it would look better

if it was on the east side of the river.

but obviously closer to the houses, most of where the houses are.

Obviously closer to some of the houses, there's obviously houses on the front of the site as well on Watery Lane.

Public Speaker - 0:32:12

The plans were something that we've spent a lot of time and obviously in consultation with the planning officers as well

in trying to give the optimum solution and in regard to that as well,

the previous buildings that were on the rear plot were significantly closer to the residential

units than this building will be. I think we've got about a 40 metre distance between the edge

of the building and the neighbouring units. The previous buildings that were on the site

were considerably closer so again in terms of trying to site it we have tried to be thoughtful

in terms of where exactly the building would be on the site to to minimise the impact.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:33:01

You're from BAM.

Presumably, you have a pre -let to City.

Is it City -C?

Automotive.

Would that be right?

And so therefore, you're trying to advise us how they're going to act operationally.

However, there's no one here from them to give us clearer and more precise answers.

Would that be right?

Public Speaker - 0:33:27

City Gate representatives are here tonight as well. We, yes, we're in discussion with

City Gate so obviously the entire plans that we brought forward and the operational management

plan which has been agreed with the planning officers and will be conditioned which contains

a lot of detail around how the building will operate, when activities can take place inside

and outside when you know the the core and function of the site can be used

that operational plan was of course agreed with us with City Gate and

because what we wouldn't want to do is agree something with you that the end

user would not be able to be comfortable with as in its operations so in terms of

that plan being one of the conditions that the proposed conditions and that

plan has been a good city in advance and are we talking new cars are we talking

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:34:23

Public Speaker - 0:34:30

new stock we are talking and cars that are so good they will be intending to

sell on their four course

Councillor Hazel Arthur -Hewitt.

Thank you.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:34:43

Just reading through the application,

I've got two things.

One was about the conditions to do with the buffer

that apparently you're agreeing to some kind of measures

that you put forward.

I'd like to know a bit more about that.

But also, from a business perspective,

if I was going to build something

that had that many serious conditions on it that said this is literally the

acceptable level of in and out of cars in and out of everything I'd be thinking

what's in it for the company because they're not gonna be able to expand

unless there's already consideration that once this application has gone

through they can then purchase more areas of the park as the officers rates

goes down because I wouldn't be feasible because of the amount of conditions and

things at the moment. So is this in your eyes a viable business to not expand to

stay as is with the amount of conditions and effort to go to it? I'd like to

explain how that's a viable office with no availability for sort of expansion

beyond what's there. It does worry me if you can't remove the cast of four courts

and you get backed up immediately there's gonna be issues and it just

seems very tight to the line and a lot of effort if there's no room for

So I'd, you know, I'd just like to hear a bit more about that.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:36:03

Before you answer that, can I say to councillors, we're debating what we've got in front of

us, not thinking about what they can do in the future or not do.

So it's what we're debating is on in front of you on the agenda.

So can I ask the applicant to answer the question, please?

Public Speaker - 0:36:23

I think in terms of concerns on this not being large enough, City Gate looked at a number

of sites. We were only one of a number of options that they looked at and they are comfortable

that in terms of their new business model and this site and this function and this scale

of function on one site is a new thing for them. They are comfortable that it will meet

the needs of their business just now and in the future.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:36:57

Yeah, I'd just like to know a summary of how you intend to deal with the lack of buffer

with the river.

Public Speaker - 0:37:08

So in terms of the work that BAM had already carried out on the site, when we bought the

site 20 years ago. It was a canal through the site so we had already done significant

improvements to naturalise the River Wye as you see it today through the site. As part

of the extant office consent that we have, there is a road already built within 2 metres

or so of the north of the bank. So recognising that the policies have changed, that there

is the need now for larger buffers, we sought to engage with both the

Environment Agency and the Council's Ecology Officers because in terms of

delivering a 10 metre buffer on both sides of the site it was going to make

the rear site unviable, it was simply going to eat too far into it. So what we

agreed with the Environment Agency and with the Ecology Officers was a

compromise, which is an eight metre buffer on the front of the site and a package of

improvements to the River Wye itself to mitigate that we are not meeting the buffer requirements

fully on the other bank. And those mitigation measures, as I think I said, are to be agreed

with the environment agency, but will include a number of biodiversity improvements to enhance

how the river functions, so that's going to mean things like the platforms that were built

into the river 20 years ago as part of the original landscaping scheme are going to come out

because they are impacting on the river flow at the moment, but at the same time we're going to

introduce new features such as ripples and gravel to encourage the river to flow in a different way

which is going to encourage biodiversity. So there's been significant engagement with both

the Environment Agency and the Ecology Officers as to what those measures would look like

and subject to surveys, the fine detail of that is still to be agreed with both the Environment

Agency and the Council's Ecology Officers.

Any other? Councillor Mark Turner.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:39:30

Thank you. I just want to clarify about viability because I can't, from the figures that we've

I can't really see how the viability could really be proven in terms of the

fact that we've got 550 cars being stored and 100 to 144 coming in and out

would make it sound as if we don't need as much storage perhaps as you've

actually got specifically. Has a viability assessment been provided to

the council as part of this negotiation on the environmental side of

Public Speaker - 0:40:07

things. I couldn't comment on exactly what's been provided to the council but

the key issue is that a 10 metre buffer on the rear plot which is to a certain

extent in place is quite narrow already would mean that there would not be

enough car parking and it would be a narrow strip that would make it not

viable for the use that we intend. It would take out, it would cause not

only the road that's already been built to be removed but it would eat into the

site to such a significant extent and and you know the plans and everything

were reviewed to look at what that would look like that City Gate said they

wouldn't be able to work with that.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:40:53

And no other questions? No. At this time in the procedures we go for technical

questions with the officers but I suggest and the approval of the committee

those technical questions be asked in the debate because we go over the same

facts in the debate and with the technical questions so I put forward a

proposal and if it's agreement with the committee that we roll that into the

open debate if that's okay would you yep thank you so I'll move on to site visit

Councillors who were Clive Harris, Councillor Hind and Councillor Turner, you have choice

of speaking on this.

Councillor Mark Turner.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:41:39

Oh, Councillor Harris is there.

I think just from the first point, it is a very, very open site.

There's a lot of space there and understandably the council were looking

at some point for up to 18 commercial units. I think that's quite a I can see

that that would be sort of in keeping with what was there in the in the first

place. I've got some concerns with this I think the first concern is the ecology

which quite clearly we have things have changed a lot since since this and so

even though if this application is not necessarily viable,

the question is what's right for the River Wye

based on what has been agreed at full council

and also what has been, you know,

what is the direction of travel.

I know from looking at some of the information

that DM -15, going back to 2014,

and is quoted in the officer's report,

says provision of a 10 metre buffer may not be achievable in some situations, for example

on some town centre sites where there's already significant built development and infringement

of the river corridor. Now I think this is particularly apt of some places within the

centre of High Wycombe where the river actually flows underneath various buildings. I'm not

sure it necessarily applies to this particular place. I mean obviously Glory Mill, Paper

mills back in the day I think there were some 30 odd paper mills in Buckinghamshire on the

river so it was nothing new and I believe that the paper mill closed in 1999 having

served in two world wars providing paper for World War One, World War Two when photographic

paper was very very much needed and obviously that need has changed but I think that now

we have a situation where we have an open site. The question is, is this the right application

for this particular site, bearing in mind the protection of the ecology of the River Wye.

The other thing as well is that I think we've looked at this application and quite clearly there are residents who are very worried about this

and while it's been quite clear that the applicants have thought long and hard about how to mitigate noise,

it has to be considered that some things are very difficult to mitigate.

So like for instance I read in one of the applicants bits of information that

that the the tyre part is outside and and it also says that everything's

basically going to be inside except the the the tyre bay and the battery -powered

wheel and nut removers used to remove wheels under the building canopy. Now I

I appreciate it's not the closest to the residents,

but nevertheless, if you've heard those things

in normal tyre centres, they're very, very loud,

and they're not the sort of ambient noise

you would normally hear.

Now, I know that the residents of the paper mill,

I would imagine a paper mill close,

would be the first to concede

that it's not the quietest of spots

being close to the motorway and the A40,

but nevertheless, it's an ambient drone

that you probably get used to,

and it probably disappears.

But I have a feeling that the zzzz of sort of nut bolt things

coming off, and the battery ones are very similar.

I did look to see that basically it's the noise comes

from the hammering mechanism inside the impact wrench,

rapidly striking an anvil to deliver bursts of torque.

So they are noisy things.

I think the other thing as well is that there is no respite.

So, you know, when you talk about commercial units,

you're talking about people who arrive at nine

and leave at five.

These are people that are arriving at six in the morning.

And with the likelihood of being able to work 24 hours

when it's busy, and that's a hell of a long time

for working, doors shut or not.

They'll undoubtedly, as Councillor Harris pointed out

on the site visit, we'll probably have extractor fans

and things to take away, you know, whatever engine fumes

and things are, you know, but it's not a great place

to have the door shut under normal circumstances,

especially in the summer that we've had recently.

So I do question whether or not it's possible.

But also the fact is that even on a Sunday there's no respite.

This is a 24 -7 operation.

I'm just not entirely sure if this is the right application for this particular site.

And I'm not sure having the wrong application at the site rather than having it empty makes

it the right application.

That's really pretty much my initial things. I think there's going to be a lot of journeys in.

I agree with what's been said about the transporters between 6 in the morning and 7 p .m.

That's still quite late and that's a lot of traffic to come with 144 cars being taken off

and then presumably 144 cars or as many being put back on and then taken out again.

I think there's, I'm not convinced this is the right application for this site at first value,

but I will certainly listen to see what other people think.

Councillor Clive Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:47:09

I think it was a good opportunity to have a good look around the site and see what's been done.

I think that if you look at the historic photographs of Glory Mill,

then I think ecology was the last thing that was on anyone's mind around the First World War.

However, if you look at the development that BAM have done to date, then you can see that

they've actually opened up the watercourse surrounding the office buildings and made

it very much a part of what they're trying to achieve.

And so therefore you have the bulrushes and everything else there, and it really softens

the development overall and makes it quite an attractive place to be.

With regard to the boundary limits near to the waterways,

I think we have to look at the way things have changed and operations have changed.

As I said, ecology was the last thing on anyone's mind back in these days of old.

However, now cars are sprayed with water paint.

The oils have all been removed from the majority of this.

if there was any form of spillage that was anticipated

coming out of the processes here,

then they'd be looking to put a bunding around it

or basically a dam all the way around the operation

so that if there were any spillage,

it would, as if you had a petrol storage

or anything like that,

then it'd be put there to stop it getting into the waterway.

So I think we can take it that the waterway

is not only gonna be protected,

but it's also gonna be enhanced

by what's proposed in terms of the development.

The development overall is gonna keep it wide open spaces.

Yes, I agree with Councillor Turner's point

about the hand drills.

They will make a great deal of noise.

But the rest of the operation will pretty much be internal.

Any air extraction, et cetera, will be subject to silences.

Whether the doors go up automatically and down quickly

in order to ensure the noise is maintained inside

for as long as possible is very likely.

As far as your point about viability is concerned

You probably find that the companies like this will have these all over the country and this will just be another

String to their bow in terms of what they're doing and they will move their move their vehicles around operationally if you go down to

Maplecross in Rickness worth you'll find condoms have a have a large unit there where they take all their vans

You wouldn't even know it was there except for when the transport has come in and out and it's right door to residential

It's actually next to watercress

planting as well. So again, the same sort of operation, not the same sort of problems.

So I don't think in terms of ecology there's a great deal to worry about. Employment wise,

employment's changed dramatically since COVID. Number of large office blocks being rented

out reduced quite considerably. In terms of industrial processes, you can go into an industrial

process these days and you won't see anyone.

The whole thing is completely automated and it's all controlled by computer operators.

You go to Sheffield Steel or something like that, you'll find hardly anyone there.

There are more security guards than actual people working within the facility.

So this facility actually creates quite a large amount of jobs.

I'm not sure that I would be, as an agent, comfortable trying to rent out an office block

in that particular location.

However, in terms of industrial, if you come down from the roundabout at the bottom of

Loughwater on the A40, then you go past the retail parks there, you go past the industrial

there, you come onto the main road that leads down to this, there's more industrial.

This is designed as an industrial location.

And so for me, the only thing I don't like is the wood planking on the front of the buildings,

which seems to be that what we've seen put on everything these days to make it sustainable, but otherwise I I

Can't see the issues a lot of people are raising with this particular development and I'll be happy to

Propose the term we accept the accept the application

Chancellor as you were the last visit

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:51:22

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:51:24

No, that's fine, I'm opening the debate to the other councillors

Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:30

I wish I could make the site visit,

but I do know it very well.

I've got a couple of queries in terms of the report,

which I think will help formulate my thought process.

2 .9 says that there'll be 31 parking spaces,

but we've been told it's a minimum of 48 staff,

if you've got 50 staff.

I'm curious as to why the highway guy is not here,

because surely if there's a deficiency, it's a deficiency.

It says it's dissatisfied but hasn't told me in terms of formulation.

31 and 48 don't match.

We know travel plans don't work.

We know that cycle parks don't work.

Sorry, 31 and 48 there's a deficiency of at least 17 just for the staff alone.

Does that then mean that actually you have to reduce the 550 down?

Because when we've just done a quick calculation,

it looks about 220 on one side, 242 on the other side,

which is about 464 in terms of the open number of cars on the site,

that doesn't match the 550 that the Athens talked about.

So therefore in my mind it's like, is this trying to get caught in a pint of pot?

So that's why I was querying in terms of where you're looking at this,

is it's like, again, the whole thing, sort of just, so those are my initial points.

I couldn't work out, it talked about a solar mic to be available,

surely the point was in proper quality design we have now, all buildings whether

it's residential, business, commercial, whatever, should be self -sufficient so

therefore it should have solar on the roof, it should have heat source pumps and the

rest of it. I didn't see that in the application listed and or guaranteed

it's a question of might still so you need to understand if the officer says is it

there if not it's got to be a requirement if that makes sense. Again

When you read the reports from the ecology officer at the EA,

I didn't actually work out how they actually started off.

It was like, we're still in negotiations.

We're still, it's like either happy or not happy.

And again, it's not very clear here where they are or not.

In terms of noise pollution, I'm not

convinced the conditions are strong enough, Chairman.

I think they need to be stronger than that.

And say, basically, after 7 PM, I'm sorry, you're inside.

And in fact, the requirement actually put all the tyre stuff

back inside, to be honest, because that will be really

noisy and really.

on a Sunday afternoon people will not be very chuffed at all chairman if you know what I mean.

In terms of light pollution, I know they're all roof lights but the point is if it's 24 -7 production you're still going to see it shine like a beacon.

So again I'm not convinced there's enough strong enough conditions or time conditions to say actually come 10 o 'clock at night I'm sorry you're done if that makes sense.

So I'm not sure in terms of the report,

it leaves too many questions.

And I assume from what the update says

is because the new MPPF rules basically telling us

basically if it's not being used

and it's for operation of development of businesses,

therefore we should be giving it.

That's how I read the summarization from the officers

is the new MPPF is really telling us

if it's undeveloped, if it's brownfield,

and it's got a business requirement,

then you just go on and do it.

That's how I'm reading it,

but I've got lots of questions there.

So I've not got a formal answer yet in my mind,

but it's left me with lots of questions.

Sorry, Jamie.

I'll come back on some of those.

So the first was to do with the number of parking spaces,

Ms. Jenny Ion - 0:55:03

31 parking spaces, but 48 staff.

As it's been set out this because of the ways will operate as a 24 -7 then it the staff will be operating in shifts

So not all the 48 staff are going to be there at the same time. So you're gonna split that down

And plus some of the staff numbers are drivers. So they'll be moving cars around so

The highway authority were satisfied that the number of parking spaces was sufficient given the information

that been provided about how the

site would operate.

So the staff numbers, if you just split it in half

between two shifts, that gives you 24 for example.

So that's well under 31.

So they're satisfied there's enough spaces for staff.

Solar, I think we have got a condition.

I couldn't quickly enough find the number

of the condition, but I know I have put one there somewhere

to require solar panels to be provided on the roof.

The Environment Agency and the ecologist, whether they have finally agreed that this can proceed,

yes, the Environment Agency have withdrawn their objection.

They are satisfied that we have sufficient detail about the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures to the river,

that's both the Y and the Glory Mill loop, that balancing things out,

that they're satisfied that there is a case to be made for a reduced buffer on

the basis of the significant enhancements that could be secured. I

think there was a question about from one of the other councillors about what

they would include. A little bit more information about that apart from

removing the decking they're looking at doing some regrading to the banks to the

white to make it look more natural. They're also looking at introducing

what are called gravel riffles which is where they change the the depths of the

water, changes the flow and deflectors which again encourages diversity of flow which is

good for the ecology and biodiversity of the river. They're also looking at putting ripples

in the loop and also they'll be investigating whether they can remove any of the gabion

baskets but that will depend on whether there are structural reasons why they shouldn't

take them out in terms of the relationship to the road. Our ecologist has also given

that the Environment Agency have removed their objection.

We reluctantly agreed that if there

are sufficient and deliverable mitigation measures,

that they would remove their ecology objection in terms

of the water course.

So there are other ecology issues

which are addressed in the report, which have also

been addressed, such as reptiles on site and so forth,

and lighting along the water course in terms of bats.

In terms of the hours of operation,

The applicant did produce a noise assessment which has been reviewed by environmental services

particular the people that deal with noise

they are satisfied that with the methodology of the report and its conclusions and that the

Site could operate in the way

It is suggesting it will without adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties subject to securing the operational management plan

I think again the conditions of

specified some of the measures that should be in that operational management plan in terms of what what can happen where and when

So to prevent vehicles being moved around overnight, for example preventing unloading of transporters before 7 a .m

members on the site visit would have noticed is quite a high level of background noise from the motorway and so the noise assessment

You know has taken that into account

when it's assessing what the impacts of noise from the development might be in that particular environment.

In terms of the roof lights, yes there would be some light escaping from those.

That wouldn't be dissimilar to windows in other properties.

Obviously the offices surrounding the site also have large windows.

The building would be set back quite a long way from the river,

so it's not likely to spill into the water course area which is the main sort of commuting route for any bats across the site.

In terms of the MPPF and what that is telling us to do, yes it does give you some steer on what weight you should give to certain matters when you are making decisions

and I have picked out those which are of particular relevance to this particular

proposal and that is that you should be giving substantial weight to development

within settlements where unless the benefits of granting permission would be

substantially outweighed by adverse effects there should be substantial

weight given to supporting business growth which allows proposal taking to

account the economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allows business

to invest, expand and or adapt, especially where that would support the economic vision

and strategy for the area and also that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where

development would make better use of vacant and underutilised land and buildings.

So I bring those to your attention because when you come to make a decision you're going

to have to weigh and balance the various issues and you need to have regard to the MPPF's

guidance that substantial weight should be given to those matters when you are carrying

out that exercise.

Yes, my helpful colleague has said it's 20 condition 29 is the one for solar and then

25 is the one for the operational management plan.

And I think they're on pages 28 and 29 of your report.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:10

The reason I was querying it was because when you look at the informative from our own environmental

health people, they've actually been very specific about what you can and can't do,

when and how. When I then read the condition, it was really generic. So how do we have a

formal way to make sure that what our own environmental officer team have told us in

terms of hours of operation and the rest of it, how do we make sure that's clearly stated

and enforceable as part of that condition rather than it being an informative. So I

I was looking at it in terms of noise, odour, dust, etc.

and the rest of it, and noise and light and the rest.

So I thought our own team did a really great job

being really specific about, you could do this, this, this and that.

I was thinking about the noisiness with the tyres and the rest of it.

You know, Sunday's and back holidays, the odds are there's no noisy works, etc.

How do you fold that into the condition?

Because the condition itself doesn't seem to have that sort of teeth, if that makes sense, Chairman.

That's where it's coming from. Thank you.

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:13

I'm not sure which informative for you looking at because I need to be clear

because I'm just trying to turn up the environmental protection officer noise

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:24

and light page 59 and 60 we know he's bit that was quite specific so unless

that's not who I think it is but yes so they've said in their comments it should

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:33

be operated in accordance with the operational management plan provided by

City Gate and then if I can... Whereas when we do other ones we actually like say we

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:44

have a football pitch and there's hours of operation we're quite specific within our

condition it says lights are out at nine o 'clock or ten o 'clock or whatever it's

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:55

going to be. If you turn up condition 25 on page 28 so I've the way that the

condition is drafted, it said it should be operated in perpetuity in accordance with

the operational management plan, in particular between the hours of 2100 and 7am, and then

it lists a whole lot of things that should not be happening during those hours.

So we've been quite prescriptive in that condition, which has picked out the particular things

in the management plan that we want to make sure happen.

Okay.

Moving on to Councillor Hazel Arthur -Hewitt.

I don't need to speak.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:03:32

I think Alex has asked so many questions.

I've run out of questions.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:03:35

Councillor Addo.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:03:42

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:03:46

I just wonder, with the many conditions outlayed, some very specific, which is quite good, would

Would it have been better for us to make sure that this is already accepted before bringing

it?

And if not, how are we going to ensure that it will be followed?

But there are so many, and I'm thinking...

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:04:19

There are a lot of conditions, I agree, but we've got sort of the general parameters already

set out within the application and we're as sure as,

so then the way forward is to impose conditions

to secure those final details,

because it may be that some of them

haven't actually been quite finalised at this stage,

and that's quite a usual practise

in terms of determining planning applications.

So for example, surface water flood risks,

the lead local flood authority is satisfied

that a suitable scheme can come forward,

but there are still final details

that need to be worked through,

so they suggest a condition that those details

should be secured. So we're satisfied that we've got to a point where we can reach a

recommendation because any points that still need to be resolved can be addressed by agreeing

condition. The applicant has to submit the details and they have to be agreed by us.

If they don't, then obviously we have our normal enforcement powers open to us to secure

compliance.

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:05:21

That would be before anything happens, because there is that, so the officer would have to

make, delegate the application to the director of planning, so there is that condition there,

if those conditions set out are not met at the time, then the director of planning can

impose or enforce?

No, it's delegated because to,

the way the recommendation's written and the way it is,

because we haven't yet secured the legal agreements,

secured the travel plans, so you can't make

a final decision, it's deferred to secure

the planning application, and the decision is made

to impose the conditions that we've set out in the report.

And then, once a decision is issued,

the applicant has to then submit further applications

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:06:09

to discharge the conditions by submitting the details and those are usually dealt with

under delegated powers, yes.

Thank you.

Moving on to Councillor Mohamed Fias.

Thank you, Chairman.

I've got a couple of questions.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:06:23

I'll start with the first one.

Under the new MPPF, can officers explain that evidence demonstrates the predicted level

of vehicle movements is robust, including peak hours

movements and reasonable future scenarios,

and whether the assessments considers the cumulative impact

on the surrounding highway network.

Yes, one question.

So the transport assessment was submitted

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:06:54

with the planning application, and that has been reviewed

by the Highway Authority.

That in particular looks at the number of trips generated in the peak hours in the morning

and the evening and they've also taken into account the extant consent for offices and

the level of trips that that would have generated and this would generate significantly less

trips than the extant office permission would have done.

The higher authority is satisfied that both the number and the type of vehicles that would

be accessing the site can do so along the highway network

and that they aren't going to result in issues

either with the capacity of the highway network

or the way it functions in terms of vehicles being able

to turn through the junctions and the geometry of that.

So highway authority are happy with the level of traffic

and the type of traffic that would access this site

and that that could be accommodated without harm

in either highway safety terms or any other terms.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:07:57

If actual vehicle movement substantially exceeds the assumptions, then the assessment planning mechanism would allow the council to intervene.

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:08:09

I am not quite sure what the question is. We don't cap the level of traffic that would be generated, we just assess what the likely level of traffic would be.

We don't then say, well, if you've said it would be 22 movements in the peak and if there's

25, that's a problem.

We just have to say this is what the likely level is going to be and we think this is

acceptable.

And as I say, it's significantly less than the number of trips that would be generated

by the office scheme.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:08:39

Second question is that the proposal does not provide the full 10 -metre river buffer

required by the relevant development plan policy.

Can Office clarify, identify the extent of the shortfall, the policy conflict with careers,

and explain why the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are sufficient to outweigh

that conflict in the planning balance under the new MPVF?

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:09:11

So on the western parcel of the land, an eight -metre buffer will be provided, so it's a shortfall

of two metres. As set out in the report the extant consent included buildings

which were a significant breach into that buffer in fact in places they come

to within two and a half metres of the bank top so as compared to that there's

a significant improvement there. On the western parcel the existing access road

I think you saw in some of the photographs and which would be retained

does encroach into the buffer.

I haven't got an exact measurement

that I can give you on that one.

But we've got to weigh all things in the balance

and taking into account the previous scheme

and the enhancements.

We've come to a balanced judgement

that the enhancements outweigh the fact

that there's not sufficient buffer according to the policy.

So that's a judgement that has been reached

by the environment agency, by archaeologists,

and by myself in terms of balancing the pros and cons,

if you like, of the development

and its history of the site.

Councillor Mark Turner.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:10:25

I've just a couple of things just on the lines

of two things, one that Councillor Collingwood said

about lighting.

I did note that it says in the report in 4 .21

that Lux is one, but their own operational management plan

shows that it's two on various sites.

Has that been changed or is that?

There was an update to the lighting strategy

during the course of the application.

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:10:48

They had shown that there was actually more light spillage

into the river corridor than we were happy with

and they reviewed that and the updated strategy

now shows only one Lux at the boundary.

I mean, this is not gonna be lit in the same way

as say a sports pitch would be lit.

So it's generally much lower levels of illumination anyway.

But yeah, the reduction in light to the boundaries

is acceptable and particularly to the water course

and to residential properties.

The only other thing, the other thing I was gonna mention,

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:11:21

or one of the other things is the fact that the,

the trip generation and the stuff from the highways report

is, it's comparable between peak times

of eight to nine and five to six p .m.

So of course we know they're going to be different because that's when normal traffic would be.

I think the difficulty with this application is the fact that we don't know what the shift patterns are.

So we don't know when people are arriving, when they're not.

It could be in the middle of the night and slamming of doors and what have you.

It could be that a 6am HGV turns up with 12 cars on it and they start unloading it by, I think it's 7am they're allowed to unload it.

It doesn't mean they can't get there before 6 or at 6.

So, you know, I don't think that the highways thing has been particularly thought through

in this.

And the other thing as well is, I was just going to mention that the ecology, our ecologist,

if you read the ecology report, well, if my colleagues read the ecology report, it looks

like he has been backed into a corner because EA have decided they're going to pull their

complaint out or their objection out.

and the part of it he actually says I can't see why they can't achieve a 10 metre buffer.

So you know I think that when you read that there's been quite a lot of objections that have been held onto by the ecologist.

It's quite clear he's not happy with it and I think he's had to pretty much remove his objection.

But the question I think is are we not going to do 10 metre buffers anymore?

Is it just you know, I've just the idea of sitting there with a with a I mean at the time conservative led

Council saying we're going to protect the chalk streams and all of a sudden we're not as

Councillor Wilson pointed out, you know, I don't see why we're on one hand protecting on the other hand

So when that's okay, there's a bit of mitigation and then we use a bit of dm15 which I think was originally meant

Specifically for the why that is under certain parts of the town centre itself on an area

that's actually relatively rural.

I appreciate that we have got buildings there already

and a road there already,

but I just feel that we are going against the policy

that we're setting.

And actually, in the draught 19 plan,

it's supposed to extend it to 15.

But if we're still going to start saying,

well, nevermind, we'll do three to five,

as long as there's a bit of mitigation in a pond

and something else, then it's okay.

I'm sorry, I just don't think it's the right way

of going about it.

There you go.

Council, Aysa Lother, you were, sorry.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:14:01

Thank you.

I mean, I do agree with Councillor Turner,

as in it is very sort of contradictory

in my eyes, the way that planning works,

where people call it in

because they're worried about the ecology and the river,

and we can only comment on the bare bones because everything else is going to happen out of our view in our comment.

So I find it, you know, because we won't find out what happens to this in terms of how things are mitigated.

This is the last point we'll really have a comment or see this.

And to sit here and go, well, yes, we'll agree it because we'll just presume everything happens down the line.

and people come in and talk because they want to know

that it hasn't been considered properly at the moment

and what can we do?

And we're helpless because we're told,

you know, it'll all happen out of view.

And that makes it very difficult for us in deciding.

And I think that there's so many elements in the reports

that say, oh, because something's gonna happen out of view

a few months down the line, say yes.

On so many things, we're not learning

from what's being done.

the planning applicants there's no onus on them to have thought about these

things before they bring it to planning I feel like in a way so we're letting

the people down with the concerns and the fact that we're being made to agree

without any knowledge of any answer to their any of their concerns because it's

taken away from us with us being able to get some edge with theory so although I

can't see any reason why we could turn this down as yet and someone here might

have a point where we can materially do that. I do find it very difficult to sit

here with that many conditions of such a serious nature and just say that's

alright because it'll be fixed out of shot because I think some you know some of

these could have been seen or you know perhaps mitigated against before.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:16:04

Can the new MPPF be published on 17 August?

has been applied to this application and whether it changes any part of the

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:16:23

office's planning balance. Yes, that's set out in the update so I have identified the

particular policies in the MPPF which are of relevance to this proposal. I have

read them all through and my assessment is it doesn't change the recommendation

on the application. I have drawn your attention to wait that you do need to

apply as set out in the MPPF though.

So that does affect your consideration

when you make your judgement and your decision.

Council Collewort.

Just to go on that point,

I thought that the office did a very nice,

good summary for us.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:57

When I read policy E2 and it just basically says,

if there's a potential benefits to the business,

commercial development to allow business to expand,

et cetera, then basically you're expected to give.

I think the new MPPF gives us even less tools to work with,

so Councillor Hazel's point, I think literally

from the way the officers are describing it to me,

which I was very helpful for, that reads to me,

this is massively untoward different reasons why

the presumption is if it's business land allocated

and under a policy too, pretty much the expectation

is to give permission, unless you can give

a massively different reason why.

I haven't come up with having done all those detailed questions, you can actually answer

all my questions.

So I can't see any reason why we can refuse this application, Chairman.

I think it's fair to say that the new MPPF does introduce, you know, you should give

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:17:52

great weight in favour of granting developments, particularly in sustainable locations.

If it was a housing application, there are sections in the MPPF which tells you what

weight you should apply to those.

So I've drawn those bits to your attention because I think they're relevant

But yeah, he's giving you guidance as to so how you should be viewing proposals

But you obviously if you think that there are you know

Justifiable reasons that outweigh that have greater weight to outweigh

That's the substantial weight in favour then and you can you can refuse development

But you have to consider whether the issues that you have raised

which you would object to the application outweigh the substantial weight that's been

given to those other matters. So yeah, it's that whole weighing and balancing exercise

and there's additional advice in the MPPF now to, I say to assist you, but you might

not see it that way.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:18:57

I think Councillors, we are sat here to make those difficult decisions and with the information

in front of us so you know if you can bring up an argument I'm sure we'll

listen to that and take it forward but you counsellors have to make that

argument for that case Councillor Harris thank you very much as I said before I'm

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:19:17

in favour of this this development I think that if it's of any comfort to

Councillor Turner with regard to the waterways within Wicom district

council went out of their way to try and improve the chalk streams and expose

more of the chalk streams in the centre of town and I think that is still

carried on going forward and also with regard to being so many conditions a lot

of those will be passed on by the landlord to the tenant to ensure

that they are enforced and finally as far as the water quality is concerned

the environmental agency are pretty quick to pick up

if anything's been poured into a watercourse

and find the source of it.

To my mind, I think that the development suits the site well

and is an opportunity for the last bit of this puzzle

to be fixed and be put into a working order.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Harris.

I take it you're proposing.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:20:18

I require a seconder.

Councillor Collingwood.

Unusual for me, but yes, based on the information

provided to us, I'd like to support Councillor Harris

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:20:31

that the reasons given outweigh the potential harms.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:20:36

So we have a proposal in Councillor Harris,

a seconder in Councillor Collingwood.

Those in favour of the recommendation for approval,

please raise your hands.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

those against, one, and abstentions, one.

So approval has been approved,

sorry the application has been approved, thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:21:03

Give the gallery a minute so to clear the gallery, thank you.

5 PL/26/00975/FA - 8-9 Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NJ

Thank you.

75 stroke f8 8 to 9 Eastern Street I reckon

I'd like to hand over to mrs. Heather Smith to introduce this item

Thank You chair

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:22:03

This is an application that seeks works to repair and adapt numbers 8 to 9 Eastern Street

Into a short stay hostile accommodation for the homeless providing 13 bedrooms with shed washing and cooking facilities

I draw your attention to the update sheets

As my colleague has said, there's been a new publication

of the MPPF on the 17th of August.

There's no conditions, I think,

that refer to the MPPF information.

The informative number one still refers to the 2024 MPPF.

That would just need to be updated.

There's also, I've updated two additional conditions,

one regarding water efficiency

and the second one requirement of a method statement

for how the front railings would be repaired and painted.

By way of introduction, the application site comprises a three -storey grade two listed building

which forms part of an existing terrace of late 18th century Georgian townhouses

on the northern side of Eastern Street in High Wycombe.

The application property is situated in the High Wycombe town conservation area,

The highway can turn Centre boundary and forms part of an allocation site within the adopted delivery and sites allocation plan

2013 as a town centre business area

The property has been vacant for approximately 10 years and was last occupied by the citizens of vice Bureau and previously before that as offices

This proposal seeks to change the use of the existing property to a short stay hostile for the homeless

The submitted plans indicate that the proposed hostel would accommodate up to

16 persons between 13 one -person bedrooms and three two -person bedrooms.

Additionally space will be made available for further five bed spaces

for during emergency winter and severe weather circumstances. Only limited

alterations are to be carried out to the building itself including the

replacement of a single -storey rear canopy structure, repair and restoration

the front railings replacement joining room repairs some of the existing

internal partitions will be removed and some of them some new internal

partitions will be installed to create the required living space however these

works will have no adverse effects upon the fabric of the host sister building

just to say that we've also got a corresponding listed building

application that to deal with the internal changes to the building that

will be dealt with under delegated powers. The proposed hostel use will

operate 24 hours a day with residents able to come and go as they please.

Communion areas will be provided to both inside and outside of the property

together with cooking facilities, a dining area, a staff room and a staff

kitchen and a staff kitchenette. Staff will be on hand throughout the opening

times and other services such as council and will be made available to residents.

The rear area of the property will be re -landscaped and a small area for waste

storage will be created. A rear gate is to be installed in the existing rear

wall to allow access for bin removal etc. If I could turn first of all to the

plans. The plan you can see before you is the location plan. You can see the

building outlined in red. There's an area to the east of the application site

which was within the council's control and that's outlined in blue. Next plan.

This is the existing site plan number eight it's so you can see number eight

on the on the western side of number ten. Number ten itself extends quite a long

way down into the boundary along the boundary of the eastern boundary of the

number eight. Moving on again, these are elevations of the existing elevations of

the site. These are the existing floor areas of the site. Moving again, this is

the proposed site plan as you can see not much has actually changed. There'll

be an area of landscaping situated at the back in the existing Sycamore trees

to be retained. Moving on, this is the proposed elevations of the building.

Proposed floor spaces, you might be able to see quite so clearly there, but

there's the areas of yellow, you can see the lines in yellow where the internal

partitions are to be removed, and then there's some slightly darker

pink red ones where internal partitions are to be created. Moving on again, this is the

area at the rear of the site that is proposed to be landscape you can see on

the right -hand side an area for bins. Just to clarify to the site for members

the the plans the bottom plan does show a section through and there's a very

small hatched area of yellow which actually shows that the land towards the

rear is to be regraded so the actual entrance gate will meet the level of the

of the pavement beyond so bins can be taken out around the back. Moving on to

the site photographs. The property in front of you with the two light blue

doors is 8 to 9 Eastern Street. This shows the property as part of the

the row of territories. The one with the black door is numbers 10 to 11 Eastern

Street. Next photograph. These are the existing front railings which will be

renovated and be painted as part of this proposal. You can also perhaps see in the

background of the picture, sort of the state and the standard that the existing listed

building is falling into. You can see the paint peeling off the existing window frames

and the columns by the front door. Next photograph. This is just the other side of the front entrance.

Again, you can see perhaps the state of the columns at the front and also the existing

railings. Next photograph.

This is a photograph of the adjacent building which is the Union Baptist Church, which is situated to the west.

You can see the side elevation of number 8 to 9.

Next photograph.

This is the pathway that leads up to the side of the Union, it leads towards the hub.

There's no direct access into the application site this way, but at the moment you can walk up to the top.

The following photograph will show you.

This is standing at the top of that footpath.

The wall that's been returned there right by the metal railings you can see is part

of the application site.

The metal railings have been put around that area because they're currently doing works

to the Eastern Street car park, which actually lies outside the site.

This is the rear of the application site.

The large red building to the right hand side

is the Union Baptist Church.

The large sycamore tree is situated just

outside the rear of the application building itself.

The more modern brick building to the left

is actually a very large extension

that was put onto the rear of number 10, 10 and 11

Eastern Street, but lies outside but adjacent

to the application site.

Moving on, this is a photograph where you can see the existing canopy structure which will be removed and replaced in a like for like position.

The windows on the left hand side are not part of the application site, they are part of number 10.

Moving again, just a further close up of the rear of the property.

Moving on, again another side view of the existing side wall of the application site will be retained.

Moving again, this is just towards the end of the site, we can see the railings are actually now around the site which lies outside while they do work to the Eason Street car park.

Next. I think that's the last one. Okay, thank you. Key issues. The applicants have

demonstrated the need for a short stay hostile for the homeless. High Wycombe has the highest

number of rough sleepers in Buckinghamshire. 17 out of 22 rough sleepers found in the last

count were found in High Wycombe. Consequently, it also has a larger proportion of antisocial

behaviour and crime related to rough sleeping. The protection of the Grade 2

listed building is an important consideration. The building is lain

vacant for a number of years and is showing signs of decline both inside and

outside. The proposed development will introduce a permanent use within the

structure which will secure its long -term retention. However the transient

nature of the proposed use could also put pressure on the historic fabric of

the Grade 2 listed building. To prevent any form of damage a condition has been

recommend requiring a building maintenance and management plan should

be submitted to and approved prior to the commencement of the use. Concern has

also been raised by the adjacent Union Baptist Church who are concerned that

the front area of the hub could attract residents of the hostel as a gathering

space which then could give rise to antisocial behaviour particularly towards

the vulnerable visitors that it has to the hub itself. In order to help prevent

any form of anti -social behaviour. A condition is recommended requiring that

a management plan be submitted to an approved which sets out how the hostile

use itself will be undertaken and how any form of anti -social activity

arising from these can be prevented. Providing that the above -mentioned

management plans are put into place the proposed use will be able to operate

without detriment to the historic fabric of the building and the safety and

being of the adjacent occupiers. We consider that all other planning

matters relating to this application are acceptable as it's set out

in the report and our recommendation is to approve this application with the

conditions specified. Thank you. Thank you. We have public speaking on this item. I have

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:32:23

Ian Mantalo from the Union Baptition as the objector,

and Chris Partington from Zebra Architects, the agent.

Mr. Mantalo, you have three minutes to speak.

Thank you very much, good evening.

Yes, I'm Ian Mantalo.

I'm a member of Union Baptist Church,

is the church that joins the application site,

Public Speaker - 1:32:44

and I've been asked by the trustees of the church

to speak this evening.

We support in principle the provision of accommodation

of homeless people. This is very much in line with the work we are already doing to support

rough sleepers in town in partnership with Wickham Homes Connexion, especially the running

of a night shelter and plug -in at the hub from our premises and we also host the Wickham

rent deposit guarantee scheme in our centre, the hub. However, we also serve a large number

of vulnerable people on our premises including children, young people, elderly and adults

at risk, not just on a Sunday but throughout the week. Following the closure of the Eastern

Street multi -storey car park, the garden at the front of our premises and the side passage

that you saw in the presentation just now is the main route in for users of the hub.

We have concerns about the potential impact that any possible antisocial behaviour from

residents of the hostel would have on these vulnerable users of our building. Unfortunately

this is not a theoretical concern. For many years we have experienced antisocial behaviour

on our grounds. This has included drug use and drug related litter, health and hygiene

risks caused by urination and defecation, littering including food waste leading to

pest control issues. We've had to call on the police and the council's antisocial behaviour

team on a number of occasions and at times had to employ private security. The activities

we do on our premises to support rough sleepers are carefully managed, extremely carefully

managed to ensure that risk to vulnerable groups using our premises is

minimised. In our view the management of this proposed hostel facility is also

critical for it to be a success. We note at paragraph 4 .24 the officers report

that there is a fair degree of uncertainty around the staffing of the

facility. We welcome the recommended condition 3 relating to the submission

and approval of an operational management plan. The requests of the committee amend

this in two ways. Firstly, that a clause is added that requires neighbouring premises

to be consulted on the operational management plan before it is submitted to the local planning

authority for approval. The outcome of that consultation is taken into account in the

final plan. Secondly, an additional bullet point is added to the list of issues the plan

should address to state the specific impact on the amenity of neighbouring premises.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:35:23

Thank you. Any points for clarification? No? Thank you. Moving on to Chris Partington.

You have three minutes.

Public Speaker - 1:35:35

Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Chris Partington from Zebra Architects,

pleased to present the proposals for 8 to 9 Eastern Street on behalf of Buckinghamshire Council.

This application addresses two vital local priorities, delivering essential short -stay accommodation for the homeless

and securing the long -term future of a deteriorating Grade 2 listed asset.

As you've heard, High Wycombe represents the primary focal point of street homelessness in Buckinghamshire.

This project directly supports national strategies to end rough sleeping by providing the high -quality, supported infrastructure required to help vulnerable individuals rebuild their lives.

At the same time, 8 -9 Eastern Street has stood vacant and boarded up for approximately 10 years following the relocation of the Citizens' Advice Bureau.

In its current derelict state, the building has itself become a focal point for antisocial behaviour and ongoing decline, as some of you who attended yesterday's site visit may have seen evidence of.

Our proposal sensitively adapts the property into short -stay accommodation, providing 13 bedrooms for up to 16 individuals, shared living and kitchen spaces, and arrangements for emergency severe weather provision,

coupled with opportunities to provide vital on -site support services.

From an architectural perspective, our scheme reinstates the building's original domestic layout.

By removing modern office partitions and inserting lightweight timber divisions,

the historic fabric remains intact and fully protected.

The external proposals focus entirely on conservation works,

restoring the slate roof, repairing the original timber sash windows, refurbishing

the historic front railings and enhancing the rear amenity space while

retaining the mature sycamore tree. We recognise the importance of good

management and the concerns raised regarding neighbouring amenity, including

those from our neighbours at the Union Baptist Church in the Hub. And we fully

condition requiring an operational management plan. This will establish

enforceable controls for staffing levels, on -site supervision,

access protocols and active management of external areas. We also welcome the

requirement for an approved buildings management plan to protect the listed

structure against wear and ensure its continued preservation. All statutory

consultees including highways heritage ecology waste and the LLFA have raised

no objections complete bat emergence surveys confirm no roosts are affected

and the waste arrangements comply fully with collection requirements in

conclusion this key your three minutes are up okay thank you

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:38:42

committee members any points for clarification

Councillor Collingwood.

Thanks, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:38:49

Just to clarify, in terms of the,

I think you said it was 13 bedrooms,

which allow for 16, I guess, adults, families,

whatever they might be.

But just curious in terms of your,

because you're saying you designed the scheme,

but reading the report, it appears that some

of the actual rooms will be below the required standard so surely if you

redesigned it slightly differently you could have met the standards if that

makes sense or a less number of rooms or different sized rooms or whatever it

might be

Public Speaker - 1:39:33

yeah I mean you talk about these sort of NDSS standards and obviously if we are

looking at permanent accommodation then they would they would apply but we're

looking at short -term accommodation here where the NDSS standards don't apply

we've applied them where we possibly can and in most cases we have but not in

every single case

Councillor Harris Thank You chairman what was the conclusion you're going to

come to

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:40:02

We all never know now.

Public Speaker - 1:40:09

It was just a summary that we're protecting a listed heritage, a listed building and delivering

that social need.

It was worth waiting for, thanks.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:40:31

I now open the debate to site visit members.

Councillor Hines.

Cllr Matthew Hind - 1:40:41

It was a very depressing trip round this lovely old building that has fallen into a really

poor state of repair.

So something that is going to turn it back even to half of what it was like a hundred

years ago then has got to be a step in the right direction.

And I'd also agree that the more people we can offer, rough sleepers we can offer housing

too, particularly in periods of poor weather, either hot or cold, has got to be a movement

in the right direction.

So I really am supportive of what we're trying to do here

If it's done, right Thank You council mark dinner

Thank You chairman, yeah, I think there's two sides this

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:41:30

one is the is the protection of the building for whatever use it does need to be brought up to standards and

Yeah, it was in quite a state look the smell of damp

I think that was the first thing second observation is actually partly

what Mr. Mankler was referring to in terms of the fact is already there's

quite a lot of well there was a rough sleeper as we arrived trying to get in

the building who had to be sort of moved over a little so we could get in so I

think you're ready that area is is not the easiest of places and and I think

the idea of having a homeless hub there sounds to me like it is in the right

place I think the one of the things that when we were shown around it was

explained to us that probably the majority of the people that would be there would like

to be female who are subject to abuse, especially in the light of the Saunderton Place, which

I think is still open, but this would be an ideal halfway house. In which case, in a way,

I think that perhaps in that situation, the nearest church would have perhaps less to

worry about in that situation. I think at the moment we don't know who the management

is going to be with but I think that the protections in place in terms of management plans will

both cover that in terms of the buildings and the actual looking after. One of the things

that was explained to us was that there is actually a sign up to a behavioural charter

when people are checked in.

So I think that's something that's quite important.

Other than that, I think it's something

that I'll be supporting, thank you.

Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much.

When I think of how many times driven past this building

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:43:19

and not taken one slight bit of notice,

I think the site visit was very, very fortuitous

because it gave us a chance to have a quick look around

at the area as a whole and you suddenly realise

that if we can regenerate this building,

then maybe we can spread others to regenerate some of those on the other side of the road.

It's quite a historic part of the town and it just needs that catalyst to get it going.

I think the other thing we have to do is we're looking at a gift hall slightly in the mouth

here, in so much as – it's good to see you again, Ian – you're more than a sympathetic

neighbour and I think that because of the activities that obviously take place within

in the hub, et cetera, then we have that benefit

that any problems that arise here have been witnessed

in the past and anything that can be done

to mitigate those should be investigated.

And I think therefore to put a condition on granting this

is to ensure that neighbours are spoken to

with regard to the management aspect of the operator.

Otherwise, I think it's a commendable use for the building.

We're not talking about cutting the building up

in a hundred million little pieces.

It's gonna maintain a great deal of its existing character

and provide a service to whoever stays there

that God willing, none of us have to stay in the future.

Thank you.

Now I'll open the debate for committee members.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:44:51

Councillor Odeh.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:44:57

I do agree with the points that have been made

about the building.

I used to volunteer there.

And so it's good to see that, you know,

like Councillor Turner said,

for feels to purposes.

My question is on page 70.

It says, however, a pop -up emergency room

for maximum of five people will be provided

during periods of severe weather.

When we're talking about pop -up,

Is that gonna be outside the building or within it?

And then also the detailed number of staff

on the premises at all times has not been provided.

Has that now been provided?

And I don't know if it's a matter for consideration

because we've spoken about antisocial behaviour.

do we need input from the police or not and would we be informing them because

if that I mean the police station is not fire but is it something to consider

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:46:16

right to just address them the points you've raised the the additional five

bed spaces would be provided inside the property but they're like for emergency

though obviously you've got the individual rooms residents will be

there but there may be situations like for example if it's snowing or it's very

heavy rain that there would be emergency spaces made available and they thought

those sort of bags would be so tucked away generally but brought out in those

situations we don't know the detailed number of stuff although that the actual

details are submitted saying that manager will be on the premises at the

moment but that's why the management plan needs to be put into place that we

can actually ensure that the building is actually going to be supervised

throughout its use and but that needs to really be done in conjunction with the

whatever or however the operator is going to be so that they can ensure us

but that is something that we would actually be wanting to know that this is

not an application that we consulted the police on the aspects of crime and the

fear against crime is a planning consideration.

And I think we've tried to address that in the report

by saying there is a potential, if this is not managed properly

for transient kind of uses to cause a nuisance.

Antisocial behaviour itself is not a planning matter.

But there is a crossover here.

But we recognise that this is a type of use that does need

to be effectively managed because you've

got vulnerable uses or vulnerable people next door.

but then you can't always say that every homeless person is going to be a person

that acts in an antisocial way so that's the reason we put a condition on

requiring a management plan to come in that management plan will need to be

discussed with ourselves when the Buckinghamshire Council are

actually the applicants it's our building and therefore we will be you

know either let it out or whoever to the operator so we'll have a control as a

and the market and show council as to who is in there.

But from a planning point of view,

we'd like an operational management plan

so that we can actually, you'd be certain

that we've done everything we can

to actually mitigate any kind of issue.

If I may?

Thank you.

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:48:31

So I like the fact that you said

about the antisocial behaviour

because it's not necessarily about the proposed residents,

it's behaviour towards them as well

because they're vulnerable and it's the knowledge

that that is what the building is

and being protecting them as well.

That is more of a concern to me

because that's a very highly high traffic public area.

So that needs to be considered as landlords' responsibility

to them as well.

So that's the point of view that I'm coming from.

I didn't quite understand what you meant about the emergency pop -up accommodation,

emergency room for a maximum of five people.

So if the property is full, with residents in there,

and there's an emergency required for the five people,

where is that gonna take place?

Well, the building itself has communal areas,

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:49:43

there's communal areas, there's communal kitchens.

My understanding is that it would be literally

on an emergency basis rather than leaving people out

in scenario or wet conditions.

There would be pop -up beds that could probably

be put on the floor.

It's not something that they want to run as a general

with that extra five people,

but you don't necessarily want people out on the streets

in that kind of condition,

so that I'm assuming that they would at least

be warm and dry and safe,

sleeping in perhaps the communal areas

or wherever they could possibly fit.

Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:50:20

I wanna go back to 4 .20, where it shows that bedrooms,

single bedrooms four, five, 10, and 11

are all below the required standard.

As a council we should be showing exemplars making sure that whatever future immunity space for whatever residence they may be.

Because my concern is, going back to operational point, is are they going to be genuinely temporary one night only?

Or are they going to be two days a week a month or whatever it might be?

Therefore, on that basis, they're not necessarily,

although it might not be the relevant standard because it's supposedly not on a permanent residential basis,

but they could be there for quite a while if we haven't had to process the people to find accommodation, etc.

So therefore, I'll register my unhappiness that us, the council, are producing a plan

that says we're going to be doing stuff that's below the required standard.

Now I know technically the answer was correct,

but actually morally I don't feel comfortable with it.

So therefore I won't object formally, but I'll register it so it'll be

admitted that I'm not happy with the way that's being brought forward.

Separately I would support Councillor Harris in terms of saying that actually

the neighbours do need to be consulted on that management plan before it's

physically signed off because I think the interaction between

because we as obviously put it's like thing is that

the chair and myself and has house we were all experts

in district on Castledale.

So we know this area really, really well.

And the interaction between those various different

buildings is going to be really key.

So therefore I think it's fundamental that we do get

the neighbours to live in the hub to actually work together

with the operators of the new scheme.

Yeah, thank you, Jim.

and I think we're good.

Mrs. Smooser.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:52:27

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:52:30

I understand what you mean regarding the room sizes.

I think it is clear to point out that those standards

actually relate to permanent residential dwellings.

There's an issue there.

I mean, we could have perhaps taken one of the rooms away

and created bigger rooms.

there's a balance, they're a metre, a square metre short of the national stands for permanent residential buildings

and perhaps on balance it's better to provide one additional room.

The idea is that people aren't staying there on a long -term basis,

they may well be there for one night, two nights, a couple of weeks, a few weeks.

The whole purpose of a short -term stay at hostel is to get people out

and so you get the people off the streets so you don't really want people there for months on end.

There are other facilities within the district and the and the and the back into your council to move people onwards. This is very much

That's the whole purpose. It's a quick bounce through

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:53:30

Thank you, I also agree about the management plan one of the things

I wanted to ask though is I never saying the antisocial behaviour isn't planning job

but from Councillor Casewick, I'm very well aware

of the fact that if you've got a lot of ASB

in an unlit alleyway, you can stop half of it

without a police person turning up if you put a light there.

So what I'm thinking is, like, we know the railway place

in Eastern Street are designated for housing.

The car parking spacing in this building

is going some point next year.

So because the hub has a lot of vulnerable people and young people go

into it, families go into it and it's such a vital resource, if we look later

down the line we're looking at people not being able to hardly access that

because they'll have to do it on foot which really cuts down. This is our, I

think this is the council's, because the council's put the application in, this is

the council's chance to make this work by actually having some drop -off bays

for the hub like out left out of this thing so that the hub can carry on being

used because I think what we're not looking at is how the hub is going to be

impinged by the council turning everything into housing and it literally

is a building at the end of an alley with no access to it at all so that's my

that's my big concern also we're talking about ASB they were saying that that's

there anyway and my concern is is if the management team at the hostel by the way

I'm very pro the hostel,

right, having listened to what's going on, we do need it.

But the management team can't be responsible

for ASB that isn't theirs.

Now, then how do you pick and choose?

That person's the police, that person's ours.

So I think it's really key in planning

to make sure that we give enough access and light

and openness to get to the hub out of this

so that people walking up to the hub,

especially when they've lost all the car parking spaces,

can see clear ahead any time of you know day or night and see what's there and

also there'd be some kind of you know sort of management in place I don't I

don't I don't think it's fair necessarily to presume that all the ASB

will be down to the hostel it's a really tricky line of who what if there's

already issues there so have have Bucks Council looked at the fact that with

with all that land going away, the car parks being lost,

around that section, how the hub's gonna be served

in terms of people being able to drop off or anything

if they're literally carving off all that bit.

And as I say, I'm very pro -hostile.

It's just a question because if I don't ask now,

there will never be a point to ask it.

Thanks.

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:56:20

The answer to your question is

I'm not aware of any future specific considerations.

The car park itself is actually

an identified allocation site

within the new Buckinghamshire plan,

but that's only at regulation 19 at the moment,

and that hasn't gone through,

so any policies in that plan carry little weight.

What we've got before us is an application site

which is at 8 to 9 Eastern Street.

The hub, it lies outside of the application site,

so we couldn't be considering any proposals

that actually would have you know for additional parking or drop -off zones for

the hub because it's not in relation to the actual scheme that we have before us

I think that's a future consideration it wouldn't be necessarily for the hub but

the hub could use it as a drop -off I mean what I'm saying is it's council

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:57:07

land is there no consideration that the council could have a condition on it

saying the council needs to provide you know drop -off access for any of those

buildings around there and the land that they own because I just feel like we're

completely cutting off that

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:57:28

When you considering putting on a condition that has to meet five tests and one of the tests of the condition is it needs to

Be relevant to the actual proposal

It would be it wouldn't be a condition that would be

either enforceable or relevant, it wouldn't be justified in this

particular incident. We're only considering, we're not considering the wider scheme

and maybe under the wider scheme, I don't know, but a redevelopment scheme, we're

considering the use of 8 to 9 Eastern Street. There's no provision on site at

all, there's no space on site for any kind of parking or vehicular movement.

Yeah, we've actually also got no vehicle access to the sites only via the the council -owned

land to the east as it goes around to the top of the car park so it's not something

we could put on on this particular application.

I think the thing is that we're discussing eight and you know the application in front

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:58:31

of us I understand your sentiments towards the hub. Hub was there they probably have

Their own means of parking or etc or drop -offs etc, but we're not discussing them

But we're discussing the application in front of us. So please can we stay on focus on this application?

councillor Harris

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:58:57

Thank you very much. You're sorry. I interrupted to counsel of colleague what is in middle of his flow

to give him the plans that we were given as part of the

as a side visit group and I think Councillor O 'Do

hasn't seen those either, but it's in terms of the rooms

being undersized, they're done sympathetically

with the design of the actual building.

So actually they do work and the two smallest ones

in the front, the staircase is up to each

because of course it's two buildings that mirror each other.

I sympathise with your views, there's a first.

What I would say is that in the hope of the operational plan,

then that could be mitigated by, in the winter,

taking people in at four o 'clock in the afternoon before it's dark,

and those sort of operational things that you can do

to prevent the build -up of people outside, et cetera.

So the people coming there to be antisocial,

the doors are closed to them anyway,

because they know where these things happen.

But I say that's that's something for the operators to work out

But if we can get this area regenerated to a reasonable standard then those people built will feel less comfortable

Unless they've actually got business there

So I'm I'm in favour

to move to the vote

Sorry councilman Hamid fears

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:00:19

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 2:00:30

Given the Heritage Office's concerns and variantaries and the neighbouring church's

concerns about the impact of 24 -hour transit use, can officers identify the specific, precise

and enforceable conditions that will protect the listed building and neighbouring immunity?

Are there any matters that should be resolved before the permission is

granted rather than left to the future?

Ms. Heather Smith - 2:01:01

Yes, thank you. I think that the reports try to identify where there may be issues

arising from this particular proposal. One is to the fabric of the listed

building, simply because of the transient nature. It was not just because it's a

homeless hostel because people moving forward and also the actual use and how

it's managed so that we've suggested two conditions which we've

been discussing. One is a building maintenance and management plan which

would ensure that the fabric of the listed building is protected and

restored throughout its use and the other one is the actual how the hostel

itself would operate. Number of staff on premises when they're on the premises,

how the external areas of the premises are going to be managed. We know the

applicant themselves are looking at perhaps having behavioural plans for

residents which perhaps goes beyond that they would it would be a clean hostel

they wouldn't be allowed to bring any kind of substance or alcohol into the

premises so it's all tied into how the actual building and the use itself

will be used and we feel with it with those two management plans that we've

recommended then the this use can actually it was kind of vital use will

actually be able to be operated without any kind of detriment. Thank You

committee members I think we've exhausted this debate so can I have a

Mr Ray Martin - 2:02:25

proposer and a seconder? Proposer Mark Turner and seconder

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:02:29

Councillor Hine. So all those in favour of the proposal to approve?

Public Speakers - 2:02:35

It's unanimous, thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:02:41

If the public want to leave, you can leave at this moment.

Thank you.

6 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Moving on to item 6, date of next meeting is Wednesday, the 23rd of September at 6 .30.

Item 7, site visit members.

7 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

can I have a show of hands for Tuesday the 22nd of September so visit

Councillor Harris, Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:03:16

Chairman, the treaty is 22nd so the plan we thought was this route would be Monday

Wednesday Tuesday Thursday that was the grand plan so I can tell you now

Holland's farm is already booked in for 22nd already as we speak.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:03:37

I think what we'll do we'll take it away and discuss it with officers and then

email committee members.

Because Chris Stewart is running both right so therefore I

assumed he was going to talk to the rest of the team on basis. Holland's farm is also part of ours as well.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:03:46

No problem we'll sort that out for you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:03:50

I'd like to thank officers and committee members for attending the meeting.

Sorry, sorry, Mr. Martin. Yes, thank you chairman

Mr Ray Martin - 2:04:05

It's been mentioned several times tonight, but the new MPPF. I don't know if you've all had a chance to have a look at it

Yet, but if you haven't please do

It's quite a sea change in

National policy for the first time they've actually introduced specific policies within the document

It has made a change to the direction in terms of the weight to be attributed to things.

There's some new stuff in there, lots of familiar stuff.

But we've had to look at it very carefully and it's something you will need to take account of moving forward.

So if you've not had a chance yet, go and have a look at that document because it would be really helpful.

Is there a training course on Monday about it?

It's certainly one coming up, I didn't know it was this Monday.

It can't be this Monday, sure, it's back on.

I know it's been a long evening, but thank you Committee members and officers for attending.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:05:05

Good night, have a safe journey.

Cllr Shade Adoh

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt

Labour Party

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Mrs Elly Cook

View profile

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Matthew Hind

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Ms. Jenny Ion

View profile

Mr Ray Martin

View profile

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

Conservative

View profile

Ms. Heather Smith

View profile

Cllr Mark Turner

Independent

View profile

Cllr Stuart Wilson

Independent

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, 26th August 2026 at 6:30pm

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:00

1 Apologies for Absence

Mrs Elly Cook - 0:01:04

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:13

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

4 PL/25/5130/FA - Glory Park, Glory Park Avenue, Wooburn Green

Ms. Jenny Ion - 0:02:06

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:14:09

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:14:30

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:17:30

Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:17:52

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:20:48

Public Speaker - 0:21:04

Public Speaker - 0:21:07

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:23:58

Public Speaker - 0:24:13

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:27:22

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:27:29

Public Speaker - 0:28:32

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:30:01

Public Speaker - 0:30:37

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:31:26

Public Speaker - 0:32:12

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:33:01

Public Speaker - 0:33:27

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:34:23

Public Speaker - 0:34:30

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:34:43

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:36:03

Public Speaker - 0:36:23

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:36:57

Public Speaker - 0:37:08

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:39:30

Public Speaker - 0:40:07

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:40:53

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:41:39

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:47:09

Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:51:22

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:51:24

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:30

Ms. Jenny Ion - 0:55:03

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:10

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:13

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:24

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:33

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:44

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:02:55

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:03:32

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:03:35

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:03:42

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:03:46

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:04:19

Cllr Shade Adoh - 1:05:21

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:06:09

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:06:23

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:06:54

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:07:57

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:08:09

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:08:39

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:09:11

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:10:25

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:10:48

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:11:21

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:14:01

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 1:16:04

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:16:23

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:57

Ms. Jenny Ion - 1:17:52

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:18:57

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:19:17

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:20:18

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:20:31

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:20:36

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:21:03

5 PL/26/00975/FA - 8-9 Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NJ

Ms. Heather Smith - 1:22:03

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:32:23

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 26th August 2026 at 6:30pm