Interactive webcast player

East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Tuesday, 15th September 2026 at 4:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Mr Harry Thomas
  3. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Cole Caesar
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  4. Cllr David Moore
  5. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  6. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Ben Robinson
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  4. Cllr David Moore
  5. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  6. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  9. Cllr David Moore
  10. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  11. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  12. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  13. Cllr David Moore
  14. Cllr Michael Bracken
  15. Cllr David Moore
  16. Public Speaker
  17. Cllr David Moore
  18. Public Speaker
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Cllr Matthew Hind
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Matthew Hind
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Martin Tett
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Martin Tett
  9. Public Speaker
  10. Cllr David Moore
  11. Public Speaker
  12. Cllr David Moore
  13. Cllr Martin Tett
  14. Public Speaker
  15. Cllr Martin Tett
  16. Public Speaker
  17. Cllr Martin Tett
  18. Cllr David Moore
  19. Public Speaker
  20. Cllr David Moore
  21. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  22. Public Speaker
  23. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  24. Public Speaker
  25. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  26. Cllr David Moore
  27. Cllr Martin Tett
  28. Mr Ben Robinson
  29. Cllr Martin Tett
  30. Mr Ben Robinson
  31. Cllr Martin Tett
  32. Mr Ben Robinson
  33. Cllr David Moore
  34. Mr Ben Robinson
  35. Cllr Martin Tett
  36. Mr Ben Robinson
  37. Cllr Martin Tett
  38. Mr Ben Robinson
  39. Cllr Martin Tett
  40. Mr Ben Robinson
  41. Cllr David Moore
  42. Mr Ben Robinson
  43. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  44. Mr Ben Robinson
  45. Cllr David Moore
  46. Mr Ben Robinson
  47. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  48. Mr Ben Robinson
  49. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  50. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  51. Mr Ben Robinson
  52. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  53. Mr Ben Robinson
  54. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  55. Mr Ben Robinson
  56. Cllr David Moore
  57. Mr Ben Robinson
  58. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  59. Mr Ben Robinson
  60. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  61. Mr Ben Robinson
  62. Cllr David Moore
  63. Cllr Mark Roberts
  64. Mr Ben Robinson
  65. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  66. Mr Ben Robinson
  67. Cllr Mark Roberts
  68. Cllr David Moore
  69. Cllr Mark Roberts
  70. Mr Ben Robinson
  71. Cllr David Moore
  72. Mr Ben Robinson
  73. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  74. Mr Ben Robinson
  75. Cllr David Moore
  76. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  77. Mr Ben Robinson
  78. Cllr David Moore
  79. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Share this agenda point
  1. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  2. Cllr David Moore
  3. Mr Ben Robinson
  4. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  5. Mr Ben Robinson
  6. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  7. Cllr Martin Tett
  8. Mr Ben Robinson
  9. Cllr Martin Tett
  10. Mr Ben Robinson
  11. Cllr Martin Tett
  12. Mr Ben Robinson
  13. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  14. Cllr David Moore
  15. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  16. Mr Ben Robinson
  17. Cllr David Moore
  18. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  19. Mr Ben Robinson
  20. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  21. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  22. Mr Ben Robinson
  23. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  24. Mr Ben Robinson
  25. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  26. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  27. Cllr David Moore
  28. Cllr Mark Roberts
  29. Mr Ben Robinson
  30. Cllr Mark Roberts
  31. Mr Ben Robinson
  32. Cllr Martin Tett
  33. Mr Ben Robinson
  34. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  35. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  36. Cllr David Moore
  37. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  38. Cllr Martin Tett
  39. Cllr David Moore
  40. Cllr Mark Roberts
  41. Cllr David Moore
  42. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  43. Cllr David Moore
  44. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  45. Cllr David Moore
  46. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  47. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  48. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  49. Mr Ben Robinson
  50. Cllr Mark Roberts
  51. Cllr David Moore
  52. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  53. Cllr Mark Roberts
  54. Cllr David Moore
  55. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Hugo Woodley
  3. Cllr David Moore
  4. Mr Harry Thomas
  5. Cllr David Moore
  6. Public Speaker
  7. Cllr David Moore
  8. Public Speaker
  9. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  10. Public Speaker
  11. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  12. Hugo Woodley
  13. Cllr David Moore
  14. Mr Ben Robinson
  15. Cllr David Moore
  16. Mr Ben Robinson
  17. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  18. Mr Ben Robinson
  19. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  20. Cllr David Moore
  21. Mr Ben Robinson
  22. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  23. Cllr Martin Tett
  24. Mr Ben Robinson
  25. Cllr Martin Tett
  26. Mr Ben Robinson
  27. Cllr Martin Tett
  28. Cllr David Moore
  29. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  30. Hugo Woodley
  31. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  32. Mr Ben Robinson
  33. Cllr Martin Tett
  34. Mr Ben Robinson
  35. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  36. Cllr Cole Caesar
  37. Mr Ben Robinson
  38. Hugo Woodley
  39. Cllr Mark Roberts
  40. Mr Ben Robinson
  41. Cllr Mark Roberts
  42. Mr Ben Robinson
  43. Cllr Mark Roberts
  44. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  45. Hugo Woodley
  46. Mr Ben Robinson
  47. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  48. Hugo Woodley
  49. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  50. Mr Ben Robinson
  51. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  52. Cllr David Moore
  53. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  54. Hugo Woodley
  55. Mr Ben Robinson
  56. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  57. Mr Ben Robinson
  58. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  59. Mr Ben Robinson
  60. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  61. Cllr David Moore
  62. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  63. Mr Ben Robinson
  64. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  65. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  66. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  67. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  68. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  69. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  70. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  71. Cllr David Moore
  72. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  73. Cllr David Moore
  74. Mr Ben Robinson
  75. Cllr Mark Roberts
  76. Cllr David Moore
  77. Cllr Martin Tett
  78. Mr Ben Robinson
  79. Cllr Martin Tett
  80. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  81. Cllr Martin Tett
  82. Mr Ben Robinson
  83. Cllr Matthew Hind
  84. Mr Ben Robinson
  85. Cllr Matthew Hind
  86. Mr Ben Robinson
  87. Cllr Matthew Hind
  88. Mr Ben Robinson
  89. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  90. Mr Ben Robinson
  91. Cllr David Moore
  92. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  93. Cllr Mark Roberts
  94. Cllr Martin Tett
  95. Cllr David Moore
  96. Cllr Thomas Hogg
  97. Cllr David Moore
  98. Cllr Mark Roberts
  99. Cllr Martin Tett
  100. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  101. Cllr Martin Tett
  102. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  3. Cllr Martin Tett
  4. Mr Ben Robinson
  5. Cllr Martin Tett
  6. Mr Ben Robinson
  7. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  8. Cllr Mark Roberts
  9. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  10. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  11. Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
  12. Cllr Mark Roberts
  13. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Moore
  2. Mr Ben Robinson
  3. Cllr David Moore
  4. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  5. Cllr David Moore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Apologies for absence

.

1 Apologies for absence

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:44
Thank you.
very controversial changes that essentially takes away powers from local
councillors and allows unelected people to decide more and more planning
applications. I think this is a disgrace to local democracy, it's a disgrace to
local planning committees who hear, residents who hear, applicants who hear
all sides of the debate. So I'm afraid as a result we'll have to go and sit three
times till the 31st of October to go through that backlog and I really
appreciate the officers as well who are working nonstop to get through that as
well preparing reports it's not just us it's the officers have had to deal with
all the all of this change as well so you know it's it's um it's annoying but
we have to go through these applications so thank you for coming especially early
to this meeting we've had a few applications that have been withdrawn
that were kind of come to this meeting today one of them the plans were
incorrect they weren't submitted properly and the other one they just the
applicant withdrew. We may see more withdrawals but we will analyse that
closely. So without further ado before we start to just have a couple of
housekeeping items this meeting is being webcasted and by entering the room you
have consented to be filmed. However if members of the public do not wish to
have their image captured please advise the committee clerk and we will help to
sit you in a place where you'll not be filmed. The fire exits are located at the
back of the chamber down the main stairs and out of the front doors and please
follow me and we will congregate outside in the space located over the bridge
towards the roundabout and without further ado we'll now move to the first
Mr Harry Thomas - 0:02:34
item of the agenda which is apologies for absence thank you chairman we've got
apologies from councillor Hing councillor Harris and councillor Ashman and
councillor Roberts has also notified us he may need to leave at 8 p .m. should we
Cllr David Moore - 0:02:47
still be sitting at that time. Did you say that was 8 p .m.? I'm sure we'll be ending before then but
Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh,

2 Declarations of interest

we now move to agenda item two declarations of interest as members have any
Cllr Cole Caesar - 0:02:59
declarations interest to declare any of the items here today. Councillor Caesar.
Thank you. Um,
on regarding to a agenda item, uh,
number eight, but that's obviously been, um, um,
removed from the agenda tonight,
but I wanted to make aware that I was reached out by free members of the public
that are aware of me from previous work in the community.
Cllr David Moore - 0:03:21
Thank you very much for that. Any other members? I'd like to make a declaration of interest
for agenda item number 6, 61 Vine Road, Stoke Poggis, that I am indeed the War Councillor.
I have been petitioned on this application. I'm aware of the enforcement history, but
I come here with an open mind and I've kept an open mind throughout that process.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:03:44
Chair, would it be all right if I mentioned that agenda item 7, I believe everyone here
will know the applicant and just want to confirm despite that all of you have an
open mind there's no personal prejudicial interest to all of you
determining that application
Cllr David Moore - 0:04:04
Thank you very much. Councillor Hogg.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 0:04:06
Regarding 61 Vine Road I too am the local ward
councillor but I come here with an open mind.
Thank you Councillor Hogg.
And if there are no more declarations of interest,
Cllr David Moore - 0:04:19
we now move to agenda item three,
which is minutes of the last meeting.
Can I have your approval
that I can sign these off, members?
Thank you very much.

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

So we kick off with our first application of the day,

Planning Applications

which is agenda item four,
which is PL 25 -2276 FA 27 Moorfield Road, Denham,
Denham, sorry, Buckinghamshire, UB95NE.
And I'm gonna hand over to Ben,
who is going to introduce the application
with the screens behind as well.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:04:46
Thank you, Chair.
This application seeks planning permission
for the conversion of the existing dwelling
into four self -contained flats,
together with part single -storey and part two -storey side
and rear extensions and a loft conversion.
The site is located within the settlement of Denham Green
in a sustainable location.
is approximately 0 .3 mails from Denham station and benefits from access to
local shops and bus services within around 0 .1 mails. Future
occupations would therefore have good access to services, facilities and public
transport. The proposed extensions have been designed to integrate with the
existing building. Importantly, the property would continue to appear as a
single dwelling when viewed from the street scene, thereby maintaining the
character and appearance of the area.
The introduction of flats at this location would also be consistent with the established
character of the surrounding area.
Flats already form parts of the local housing mix, including within the buildings immediately
to the south -west of the application site.
As such, the proposed use would not appear out of keeping with the prevailing pattern
of development.
Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable overlooking,
loss of privacy or loss of light to neighbouring properties. In addition the
front garden provides sufficient space to accommodate the four parking spaces
required under the council's parking standards and no objections have been
raised by the Highway Authority regarding highway safety or parking
impacts. It is also important to note that the site has already been the
subject of granted certificates of lawfulness for the single storey rear
extension and the roof alterations including the rear door windows.
These elements establish a fallback position that can already be implemented.
In policy terms, the proposal represents sustainable development within an established settlement.
Policy S4 of the new MPPF establishes a presumption in favour of development within settlements
and states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the
benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects.
The proposal would deliver planning benefits that are specifically identified within the
MPPF.
Policy L2 states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a proposal
would create additional development within existing plots.
Furthermore, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five -year housing land supply
and MPPF policy H07 sets out that substantial weight, again, should be given to proposals
that contribute towards meeting identified housing needs.
The development would therefore provide four additional homes in a sustainable location
and substantial weight applies to the benefit of creating additional development within
existing plots and additional, additionally substantial weight given to
the benefit of providing homes within which contribute to the council's needs.
Having assessed the proposal, officers have not identified any adverse impacts
that would substantially outweigh these benefits. For these
reasons the recommendation before members is to grant planning permission
subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.
Moving on to the plans.
So this just shows an aerial photograph
of the application site which is outlined in red.
You can see to the southwest the block of flats here
and then the row of dwellings to the northeast.
This shows the proposed development.
As you can see, there's a roof dormer here,
rear extension here, and a side rear extension here.
The parking for the development
to the front of the building.
Oh yes, there's also amenity areas for the proposed flat,
So there's two immediate mean I mean chariots serving the flats that immediately adjoin them and then the remainder of the
Garden, which is a substantial garden as I was on site yesterday would have seen
That would be for the use of the remainder of the flats
Now you've got the existing building and also the proposed building
say this is the side extension and
And then you've got the hip to gable reef changes and roof lights from the front.
As mentioned, they already have permitted development for the changes to the roof, so
that could be built without planning permission.
Here's showing the rear elevations for the existing and proposed.
Again, that's the dormer window which they could build under permitted development.
and the ground floor extension here could be built under permit development. This side
extension is part of this application as well. We've got floor pans, so this shows the access
to the flats. So you've got front access to these flats here and then side access for
floor, the ground floor flat to the rear and to the front there. Again, that's the first
floor and the loft floor plan. We've just got some photographs that just shows the site
as existing. This just shows the existing flats that are joined the property. Again,
just down in the context of the adjoining properties.
This one there with a hip to gable roof extension.
Again, the flats next door.
And that covers my presentation, Chair.
Thank you, Ben.
We now move to all the speakers,
Cllr David Moore - 0:11:13
all five speakers actually, on this application.
And I'm gonna start with our Buckinghamshire Ward Councillors
come to speak on this application. I understand Councillor Chokar you would
like to speak first. Yes, thank you. You have three minutes, green is start, orange is 30 seconds,
then red means your time is up. You may start when ready. Okay, thank you. Thank you for
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:11:37
having me to speak Chairman. I'd like to raise a few points about this application.
I noticed in the officer's report there was mention of the five -year housing
supply not being met. Well, as you know we have the draught local plan out which
does show housing supply being delivered based on the target that's been set for us by central
government. So I believe that should carry some weight.
Moving on to the application itself, I'm quite concerned about the parking spaces. There's
four shown there and there's potentially two people per flat living there. So there may
be more than four cars. There'll be some overspilled parking potentially. And the manoeuvrability
just doesn't look right. I mean the highways report said that they're the wrong size and
the officers report says this can be corrected by conditions and I just don't see how that
can be done. They need to resubmit the plans showing proper manoeuvrability and safety
to get in and out just looking at the map the street scene that was put up. I don't
see how all those cars are going to get in and out safely. So I don't think it's too
sad to say that highways have no objection because they did raise concerns about this
Moving on to the character, this stretch of Moorfield Road is semi -detached family houses, the whole stretch is.
Mention is made about flats next to it, but that is a purpose -built block of flats.
It is not a house converted into flats, there are none others on that stretch.
So I think it's, well, I don't think it's accurate to draw that analogy, to say that somehow in keeping with the character.
I believe there will be an adverse effect on the character as I mentioned and also the immunity.
There's going to be up to eight people living there, four separate units.
That's not the same as living next door to a single family house.
There will be increasing vehicle movements, increase in noise.
It is different, no doubt.
The increase in density can be justified in some areas, but I just don't see how changing
from one house to four separate dwellings in this location could be right.
Other points I'd like to mention, the BNG is not being provided on site, it's being
purchased off -site and
I noticed mention was made about the back garden being left for the flats. Well, you should be where the original
Application actually wanted to put two houses in the back garden, which has now gone but I know we're not looking at that now
But I'll just leave that for you to think about what might come down the line on that. Thank you
Cllr David Moore - 0:14:21
Thank You councillor Chokar. Any points of clarification from councillor Chokar's
three -minute speech they'd like to ask him?
Councillor Waters.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:14:33
Obviously as a committee we have to look as the officer has said,
sort of, statual reasons and in terms of the character could you give me a bit
more detail in terms of what you believe the character and what the loss of that
character would be within the street scene?
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:14:52
I mean, I would just reiterate that whole stretch of Morfield Road is semi -detached
family houses and to change it into to change one of those into four flats would be out
of keeping. It shouldn't be seen as part of the purpose -built block of flats, which is
quite different and quite a distance away from those houses. This is a stretch of semi -detached
houses and that's the setting for Morfield Road and Denham Green generally.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:15:22
Sorry just give up and they are of a consistent design? No they do differ to
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:15:27
some degree but you can tell originally they were all fairly similar but over
time they've been extended and modified for individual tastes.
Cllr David Moore - 0:15:36
Councillor Ciocha if I may, you alluded to the four parking spaces,
inferred that they they wouldn't quite hit was it the capacity what why do you
think with material terms that the four are not substantial I mean for just to
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:15:48
be clear four parking spaces does match the requirement for the site but I just
say two points firstly the highways report has said that they're not the
right size and in the report it's been said this can be conditioned to be
corrected but I don't see how if they're wrong they're wrong and the just looking
at the plan that's been put forward, the manoeuvrability looks very difficult on the front forecourt.
And the other point was there will be additional parking. There's a small service road at the
front which already accommodates some overspill parking, as you saw on the street view that
was put up there. So that will that could potentially spill out onto onto that and make
things even worse the area. So in your view, no condition can mitigate that? Well, that's
My view is if you get something wrong, you should come back and change it and correct it and show how you can probably accommodate it,
not grant permission, then say we'll fix it later down the line.
Any more questions of clarification, council Townsend?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:16:47
Thank you. You mentioned about overspill parking.
Is that a particular issue on that stretch of road?
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:16:54
Yeah, look, those laybys do have cars parked on because for whatever reason, some houses may have additional cars
or there may be visitors or deliveries, whatever there is,
but there are those service roads.
And I just feel adding three additional residential units
will exacerbate that problem.
Cllr David Moore - 0:17:16
Any other questions?
Take that's all.
Thank you very much, Councillor Chokar.
We now move to Councillor Bracken,
who is another ward Councillor covering Denham.
Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:17:29
You have three minutes and you may start when ready.
Thanks very much. I want to just expand on a couple of points that my colleague has already
raised. I firstly, I do agree on the character of the area and I think there's a very, there's
some subtlety to the numbers debates that is worth having. I know that this committee
is always being told we don't meet the five -year target. Well, we certainly had no evidence
for that a year ago. By the time the clinical plan is adopted, we will have 100 % evidence
for that we are well along that path so I think you have to take that with a pinch of
salt but I also think there's a misinterpretation of the presentation here because the presentation
was that actually that you're adding four units you're not you're adding three units
and the exact test in the NPPF is that you should be looking at the benefits of providing
homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced housing accommodation needs.
Now, we have a needs assessment at the county level which has been produced in connexion
with the local plan.
And the reality is that there is a difference between what we need in terms of one bedrooms
and family homes.
So for example, across the whole county out of our 91 ,000 target, we are required to have
14 ,600 one bedroom departments.
But the number of family homes, let's say three bedrooms or four or more is almost 40 ,000.
So what we are actually talking about here is removing one family home and having a gain of four one -bedroom departments.
And I think especially when you then look at this location, this location has many, many flats around it,
not just in the adjacent buildings, but all along both sides of North Orbital Road, you will see significant numbers of small flat units that are available.
So I think it is very very important and entirely appropriate to value the preservation of that family home
unit in this location
And I do not accept that this substantially goes to meet the needs of the MPPF policy
07
the second thing I want to discuss is the the similar the parking issue and I I don't agree with the approach here because
as my colleague has pointed out it's very difficult to see how you would put the
put these into, get these four spaces properly sized in,
and the planning officer,
how his officer makes that point.
But I also think this is a misapplication
of the planning practise guide,
because the planning practise guide says very specifically,
if a detail on the proposed development or lack of it
is unacceptable in planning terms,
the best course of action will be to often ask the applicant
to revise the application.
Now, the applicant has always already revised it
to meet the, you know, reduce the size
and remove the rear garden.
I simply don't understand why it would not be impossible to redesign this relatively simple aspect of the proposal
To meet these units. So I find this unconvincing
Thank you
Cllr David Moore - 0:20:33
Thank You councillor bracken right on the dot on the timing any points of clarification to councillor bracken from his speech. She's just made
Thank You councillor bracken
we now move to
Derek Wilson of the objectors
I understand you actually cancelled Eric Wilson apologies of
Public Speaker - 0:20:57
Representing the Denham parish council you have three minutes and you may start one ready. Thank you
Thank you very much chairman just for clarification. I'm the clerk at Denham parish council and not a councillor
But I wish to make the comments that have been made
when we had our planning meeting and that is that
that Denham Parish Council objects to the over intensification of the site with over development
and no change from the previous proposal with the reduction of two houses. There's inadequate
parking with no visitor space. Now in addition I would say that where number 27 is positioned
and as you can see from your proposed site plan there is a dog leg appearing
at the top that is not contained in the land registry document so therefore the
red line is falsely saying that there is access from behind Moorfield Road so
therefore the amount of traffic that will be using this particular
development will actually either be reversing onto the service road. Now
anybody that knows Moorfield Road is quite a busy road. It leads from Denham
Green and heads towards Harefield and on the first service road access this is
properties 27 to 33 are located off Moorfield Road.
And number 27 is the first property you see
as you enter the service road.
Now, for anybody that knows about highways
and traffic management, there is a risk there
that any vehicles accessing the service road,
they are likely to encounter a reversing vehicle
coming out of that property to turn and access back onto Moorfield Road using
the service road. So where my colleagues have already explained the issues in
relation to the development itself it's just that the majority the vast
majority of properties in Moorfield Road are semi -detached properties as you've
heard from Councillor Chokha and you've already heard that there is various
policies that this is very much going against and I would strongly urge the
panel to actually refuse this application because this is actually
converting an existing semi -detached dwelling into four flats. All other
properties are remaining as semi -detached and therefore it is creating
a precedence that is not otherwise there at present.
Cllr David Moore - 0:24:02
Thank you Mr Wilson. Any questions of clarification to Mr Wilson? Thank you very
much. Thank you for your time. And now we move to Mr Aaron Gudiol who is one of
the objectors. You also have three minutes you may start when ready.
Public Speaker - 0:24:19
Councillors, thank you for allowing me to speak today.
My name's Aaron Goodial and I actually live on number 33
Moorfield Road with my wife and my two young daughters.
My objection comes down to four points really.
Over intensification, parking and highway safety,
the reality of four independent households
and protecting the established character of Moorfield Road.
Before addressing these points, I want to explain
why so many residents knew nothing about this application.
Number 24, number 29 was notified,
but its resident Maureen was living with dementia and shortly afterwards moved into a residential care neither our household
Nor number 31 was formally notified
I appreciate that notification is not the planning issue before you but explains why residents who use this service road every day
We're not raising these concerns earlier
over firstly over intensification the report calculates 57 dwellings per hectare
compared with approximately 13 to 15 in the surrounding area. This is
approaching four times the density for the prevailing density for Denham. I
understand the emphasis on Denham station but proximity to a railway
station does not increase the physical capacity or infrastructure of this
service road. Secondly parking and highway safety I mean you guys were
there yesterday one of the councillors actually blocked my drop curb in order
to visit the property for about 40 minutes. You didn't have anywhere to that
and I went to go get a loaf of bread, I had to mount the kerb because I couldn't get my car in and out, quite simply, right?
To your address madam, there's endless issues with parking down that road, people are covering my drive all the time
if we're going to have 8 people in there, doubling the amount of people on the cove, right?

4 PL/25/2276/FA - 27 Moorfield Road, Denham Green, Buckinghamshire, UB9 5NE

you know, I'm not going to be able to get my car in and out of this property, right?
Most importantly, number 27 as the dwelling today already has 3 cars and a van associated with it
Because there's insufficient parking within this property, vehicles are already having to park on the road.
This proposal provides four spaces for four flats.
This is not a hypothetical concern about future parking, but we can already see one dwelling is going to generate more than that.
We've already had a crash with number 27 smashing into our cars on the road.
You've got to make the verge a little bit less if you want to get this through.
right, you know, the reality of four independent households and the additional activity they're
going to create, right, more residents, you know, we're just not going to be able to live
there, you know, respectfully you guys were there yesterday, you know, you couldn't get
any other cars down that road, right, how are we going to expect to have that extra
people living there, you know, as I said, I'm just speaking from the heart here, I live
down that road, this is going to affect me every day, I've got two young girls, you're
going to increase all of this extra on the road, you know, you saw it for yourselves,
how can you reasonably accept that?
You know, this gentleman parked over my drop curb
for 40 minutes, thank you.
Cllr David Moore - 0:27:07
Thank you, Mr. Goody.
It's not the first time that members on site visits
have blocked access before, so yes, no.
Thank you very much.
Any points of clarification or questions
to the speech we just heard?
Council Member Heiden.
Interesting.
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:27:26
You've paved the whole of your front area, haven't you?
Where is, is that right?
Sorry, when we bought the house the driver was already committed by that.
I didn't mean you personally, I meant your house is paid. How many cars do you think
you could fit on your driveway? Well I can get four cars on my driveway yes.
Public Speaker - 0:27:45
But my guests have to park outside. Sure, sure. And the two houses next door they've just built
Cllr Matthew Hind - 0:27:50
a driveway so all of that's dropped curve now. And I guess at the moment if the lady at number 29 was
suffering from dementia one hopes she wasn't a driver and that therefore
whoever takes over her that house there will be families already bought that he
Public Speaker - 0:28:05
owns a car dealership as you saw yesterday he's got four cars in his
driveway one out the front that's there all the time the house at the end they
normally put their cars outside as well that's just with four families living
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:28:19
there okay thank you councillor Ted yes thank you unfortunately I wasn't able to
attend yesterday on the upside I therefore didn't block anybody's drive
But it's the serious point
The one of the key issues you raise is the question of the character of the road and this this development being out of character
The road unfortunately because I couldn't attend my question really goes to what is the rest of the character of the road because?
the report leads us to believe there have been a number of
Alterations to many of the properties in the road where they've had additions extensions and so on
I'm just trying to get clear in my mind. What is it about this that would be so radically different from the extensions to other?
properties in the road
Public Speaker - 0:28:58
Okay, I'll tell you so in that little subsection there the people that own those houses have been living there
They only recently all of those people have passed away in the last five years, right? So that new owners there
So what bought us and led us to that road was those people that brought up their families there
They lived there their whole lives, right?
So that's what we've seen is the character of the road all of our direct neighbours their young family similar as our young children
That's everybody as the council has said there's no other flat run that they're all retirement flats, right?
You know, they're completely different the whole other character of the roads are young families and that's that's what we're saying
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:29:34
So that's not quite the question as I intended it's not so much about
who lives there, I was, the character of the road
in planning terms isn't really a question
of who lives there.
And we can only be bound by planning law in this.
In terms of the look of the buildings from the outside,
what is the difference between what is proposed here
and the various extensions and additions
that have been made to other properties in the road
from a visual point of view?
Public Speaker - 0:30:06
well it's from a visual point of view no one's got no one's got a house like that
on our road so yeah I was just gonna say more from a density point of view and
surely you can understand that you know they're all everybody maintains their
houses they look after them you know there is no multiple occupancy
properties
Cllr David Moore - 0:30:24
Thank You mr. Goudeau any other questions thank you very much for your
time we now move to the final speaker who is mr. Nick Gryphon who is the
Public Speaker - 0:30:35
applicants. You have three minutes. You may start when ready. Thank you. Good afternoon
chair and members. The proposal before you seeks planning permission for the conversion
of the existing dwelling into four one bedroom flats together with associated extensions
and alterations. Importantly the two dwellings that originally formed part of the scheme
have been removed through the application process. The proposal before members today
relates solely to the existing building. We note that the main objections have been around
the impact on the character of the area. However, it is important to again reiterate that a
substantial element of the roof alterations, namely the hip to gable extension and rear
dormer, have already been confirmed by Buckinghamshire Council as lawful permitted development.
The Council issued a Certificate of Lawfulness in August 2024,
confirming that these roof alterations currently benefit from planning permission.
Therefore, irrespective of the outcome of this application,
the roof alterations can lawfully be constructed
and form a fallback position that is capable of being implemented.
For this reason, the visual impact of those alterations has already been established.
The officer's report concludes that the remaining elements of the proposal would not harm the
character or appearance of the area, and that the building would continue to appear as a
single dwelling within the street scene.
The proposal is also located within a highly sustainable location, close to local services
and Denham station.
Technical consultees including highways, ecology and environmental health raise no objections
subject to conditions.
Officers have further concluded there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and that all four flats meet the nationally described space standards.
Finally, members will be aware that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five -year housing land supply.
And I'll just comment there, you've got to consider this in terms of the current land supply, not what the future land supply might be.
This proposal provides for much needed homes within an existing settlement boundary,
makes sufficient use of land and accords with the objectives of the MPPF.
For these reasons and for the reasons set out in the Officer's Report,
the development before you is in accordance with policies of your development plan and national planning policy,
and there are no material considerations that justify refusal of this application.
Therefore, we respectfully ask members to support the officer recommendation and grant
planning permission.
Cllr David Moore - 0:33:11
Thank you Mr Gryphon.
Does anyone have any questions?
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:33:16
Mark, Councillor Tepp.
Yes, the issue of parking has been raised repeatedly by previous speakers.
The officer report, I believe, says that these parking standards that are proposed are smaller
than would normally be required.
Can you just explain a little bit about why they are so small and why they aren't meeting
the required standard laid down by the council?
Public Speaker - 0:33:41
Well, I wasn't involved with the design process, but my understanding is that the spaces don't
meet the current size requirements, which I understand to be five metres by 2 .5 metres.
So my guess is that when this was designed
the previous
Sizes size requirements were applied which would have been four point eight metres by two point four metres
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:34:06
I'm sorry just for the clarity of the committee. May I just cheque whether that has changed since the original
Public Speaker - 0:34:17
Submission because it sounds like the applicant is saying that not to my question
The requirements haven't changed.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:34:20
Yes, to my knowledge they have not changed.
So may I just again repeat my question just so I'm clear on the answer.
The standards are not met in the submission that we're seeing today.
And I was trying to understand why the applicant who you are representing here this evening has chosen not to meet that standard.
OK. Well, my first thing I would say is I don't think they chose not to meet that standard.
I think that's how the architect design the parking layout
But the other thing I think I would comment there is that the highway authority has obviously considered the layout the space available
And commented that currently the spaces aren't of the size that is required
But it seems apparent to me with all my years of experience working in this industry
That they would have in making those comments recommending a condition
they would have done so being confident that the proper size could have been met.
Cllr David Moore - 0:35:20
Thank You councillor. I'm actually just going to go into that a bit more. So I
think a lot of these questions will move to the officer but I'm just gonna ask
you Mr. Gryphon. Five metres by 2 .8 metres in your view could fit those cars
for those inhabitants plus bins, safety access, drainage etc. you know bin storage.
Public Speaker - 0:35:46
you think that is a sufficient space for for access for this dwelling sorry five
metres by two point five metres I think would be the standard if I'm correct but
I I think it could be yeah I know again comment the highway authority would not
be recommending approval with a condition if they didn't feel that it
Cllr David Moore - 0:36:09
could be achieved but the highway said they were under sized anyway I think I
leave those to the officers. Any more? I think Council Waters you've been waiting
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:36:15
patiently you may go. I was going to go down the parking route but I've got another question actually.
It's really to do with the plan and the garden that's there. Looking at the plan
there's an access onto the road behind for this particular site and all of the
in this plant is being designated as it to the flats which don't which are not
at the ground floor level for the higher level so none of that is going to get
hived off for any reason so it will be part it'll be clearly stated that they
will have gardens that are shared of a particular size so that we don't we're
not actually seeing an application coming through on that back land at a
stage I just want to make sure is what we're agreeing is that that garden is
Public Speaker - 0:37:08
going with those with those flats that is what's been shown as part of this
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:37:10
application yes okay thank you and one of the things you didn't mention I'm
asking there was a query about the red line on the plan whether all of that
land was under the control of the applicant in the front I think where
there's a dogleg I presume as you come into the close can you confirm that that
is correct that is what we're actually seeing is is what is under the control
of the applicant because that would have been what would have been on the form I
Public Speaker - 0:37:44
see well you're correct when when the application was submitted there would
have been a declaration I I didn't I wasn't the agent for the application
I've just been asked to come along today to to speak to it but it was either that
they will have signed certificate a which that they own all of the land
within the red within the red line or turns into a certificate B to say that
they don't own all the land but they have served notice on the other party
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:38:17
Cllr David Moore - 0:38:19
that does but my understanding it would have been certificate a thank you
Councillor waters for no other questions Thank You mr. Gryphon we now move to
questions technical questions to the officers council tech do you want to
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:38:32
move in first my reputation precedes me I've got a number of questions and
hopefully they aren't too tricky I just some clarification both for the committee
but also for the public there's reference the fact that numerous
extensions are already permitted to the dwelling and that the additional
elements are relatively de minimis that's not quite the phrase used can you
just be clear to the committee are we considering the application as a whole
or are we effectively looking at the new additions beyond the permitted
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:39:08
development that's my first question you're correct you're considering the
application as a whole but the point is is a material consideration in making
that decision that the alterations to the roof including the dormer window for
example and the
Single -storey extension could be built under permitted development. So for example if you were if you were
taking issue with the design of the rear dormer for example, because it's quite a large rear dormer and
It would be relevant to consider that that could actually be built without the need for planning permission
And that would be a consideration in making that decision
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:39:48
And my next question
But leading on from that is, were we, hypothetically,
to refuse permission as described here,
and the applicant chose to build
within the permitted development rights they have,
how would that alter the parking requirement?
Would they then be within the standard adopted
by the council, or would they still be outside that standard?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:13
It wouldn't necessarily be relevant
because they could build it without permission,
so the standards only apply to development
and needs permission.
So there isn't in the criteria for permitted development,
it doesn't require an assessment of parking.
It just says you can do this as long as it's
within the dimension specified.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:40:34
So if it's permitted development,
our parking standards do not apply,
and in fact, you could effectively just have
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:40:42
one parking space and still go ahead.
Is that correct?
Yeah, the permit development applies to any dwelling house,
and providing they benefit from permitted development rates,
you can exercise your right to build.
I don't know if Councillor Waters
wants to add information on this item.
I've got a couple of other questions if that's okay.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Oh, okay, that's fine.
Before you continue, Councillor Ting,
I just wanted to go in there,
Cllr David Moore - 0:41:05
and saying how much weight, as members,
are we giving to this legal fallback
that was agreed in your professional opinion?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:41:15
It's for the decision maker to attribute weight. I would give that significant weight if I
was making a decision given that it could be built without permission, but it depends
on in what context you're giving it weight. So if, for example, as I said in the example
earlier, if you were to take an issue with the specific design of the dormer window,
then it would be very relevant that that could be built without permission and
therefore you would you would I
Think you would be misjudged to refuse permission on those grounds because they could already build it without without the need for actually having permission
for it
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:41:55
Understood. Can I just move us on to two other quick points then the biodiversity net gain again?
It does not meet the standard in terms of biodiversity net gain and there is the proposal for a condition
that habitat units would be purchased from a local habitat bank. What powers do
we have to ensure that is done? So were this to be granted property built, I have
significant experience trying to get enforcement action in this county. It
rarely gets done frankly. I just wondered what powers we have to enforce that
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:42:33
biodiversity net gain requirement should that not be done? So the the bad diversity
that gain legislation is separate from regular planning planning permissions and and the like it's it's a
National condition attached to all permissions where that the biodiversity net gain is required and is not exempt
So there's a requirement to submit before
Carrying out works to submit a biodiversity net gain plan for approval to the local authority
So if they weren't if they didn't do that
as
In advance of starting work they would be in breach of that condition and the council would be able to take enforcement action
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:13
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:43:15
So that's a plan needs to be submitted. It's not that the habit of the habitat units need to be purchased
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:43:20
So it's it's called a plan but that plan could could amount to buying units from
From elsewhere and a similar point about the fact that this application site lies in there of serious water stress
Which again given the the issues we've had over the summer and like to have in the future
may well be a significant factor. It just says a condition to ensure the standard
is adopted is considered necessary. Can you tell us a little bit more about that
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:43:45
and the enforceability of that condition? It's a standard condition to meet the
current requirements. Again it's a condition that would need to be complied
with and if it wasn't complied with then we would be able to take action. Just to
Cllr David Moore - 0:44:00
Going on to that what cancer was saying about the the habitat units. They're looking to purchase
How many are they looking to purchase how we testing that threshold to meet that 10 %?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:44:11
Where and where yeah, where so when they so as part of the?
The biodiversity net gain plan that they would have to submit that would be consulted with the council's
Ecologist he would then look at the information and cheque whether or not there was sufficient
Amounts of net gain that would have been purchased such that it met the regulations
So it it's the the legislation does say that because it's separate legislation that this wouldn't be a matter that would
Give rise to a reason to refuse permission given that it's a separate
Regime which governs it
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:44:51
Council waters then council town centre
The area I want to sort of question and go into a little bit more because we're talking
about the character of the area and the character of the house. My understanding when you're
looking at it, particularly when it's to do with street scene as one of the key things,
it's about what you visually see if you're walking along the road, how does that character
look in terms of the house? And though the building is split up into flats, the look
from the front isn't going to significantly change is it because they have front door
for two of the flats and a separate access to the others. But the front isn't going to
significantly change to what there is there already of them going to the site and obviously
they're going to put some things into the roof but that will be the change rather than
anything dynamically different. So you know the key thing is it looks like a house, single
house from the front and that's one of the key indicators is that when we're looking
It's splitting flats. It doesn't you have multiple doors and multiple access points
Am I right on that in terms of we're assessing the character correct?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:45:58
Density is a relevant
consideration when you're looking at it, but ultimately
What you're looking looking at these with the proposal
Have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area
So when you were walking down the street and approaching the property would it appear different?
Substantially different from the other properties in the street
So our point as offices is it's been designed
to appear as a
Still a single dwelling it to all intents of purposes if you were if you were walking past you wouldn't know that it was a
being used for flats
Say in that respect it would maintain that character and also obviously I know I know it's on a separate row of dwellings
to the flats which are immediately next door but it is relevant that the area
does contain flats and you know it's part and parcel of the wider
Cllr David Moore - 0:47:00
character also. I'm just gonna lean in on what council water saying and just
about you mentioned about the densification now around where this
site is the the average densification is about 13 to 15 hectares sorry dwellings
per hectare, then this is going to be 57 .8 per hectare. That's quite a substantial increase.
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:47:18
It is different, but what we're looking at is what would the impacts of that be. So an
increase in density on its own wouldn't have a mere result in a level of harm that would
justify refusing planning permission. What you've got to look at is how would that appear
and how would that impact upon the character. So just simply being a higher density wouldn't
wouldn't be harmful in my professional opinion.
And that's borne out when we've had
similar appeals in the area.
So we've had a few applications
that have come before committee
where similar arguments have been made.
And the argument has been that the building
has been converted to flats,
so it's a proposal for flats that appears
as one dwelling or one building.
And the inspectors have looked at it and said,
and said essentially that it would have the appearance of a single dwelling
and therefore it wouldn't harm the character and appearance of the area.
Sometimes when you've got multiple flats and more higher density
where there's lots of need for parking and things like that,
it does start to impact on the character.
So if, for example, you had 10 flats and all the parking was at the front
and you suddenly had lots of, a big open space of parking that was necessary,
then that would start to draw attention
to the increase in density.
But in our opinion, that isn't the case here
because you've got four parking spaces to the dwelling,
which isn't unusual as one of the speakers said,
that property would be sufficient size
on the front garden to park four vehicles.
So it wouldn't appear out of keeping
to have four vehicles parking to the front of that property.
okay well you can't speak now you've had you've had your day in court sorry
I've got some waters can you want to go back do you want to more questions
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:49:11
actually so can I carry on yeah go ahead I was going to mention the parking
obviously looking at the parking for is obviously the number that highways have
looked at though we all know it's probably substandard for actual four
flats to use because the realities are there within those flats there's likely
be at least one couple who are going to have two cars.
We know in terms of highways terms, they have done the assessment, they have said it's okay,
but as long as it can be redesigned to have the acceptable size to meet the standards
of the parking spaces.
What happens if we put it through under that condition and they fail to be able to come
with the size of parking space on the site.
Is that something which would be a stop on the development?
Because I know on highways, we almost never win anything
on highways when we go to appeal.
So it'd be interesting to know what actually would happen
because we're asking for something and saying
it needs to happen and it should happen,
but I'm a bit concerned whether actually it carries
as much weight as we hope it would.
So the highways officer, when looking at the application,
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:50:28
It did acknowledge that the spaces are shown on the plan weren't went to the standard but they also considered that the front
Front garden was capable of accommodating for spaces. So in that in that case, he recommended a condition to achieve that
You know the purpose of conditions is to
Enable development to proceed if it would have been necessary to refuse planning permission. So
essentially that's what that's what the sort to do is sort to remedy a
Potential issue food condition and also it's relevant that the guidance for appeals
So if we were to refuse permission on that on that basis
It does it does state that refusing planning permission on a ground capable have been dealt with by condition risks and award of costs
Where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead
so on that basis that as offices we didn't feel that we could refuse permission simply because the
plan that they've submitted
wasn't wasn't was slightly out of
Keeping with the with it with the standards the actual
space the front of the front of the property is capable of that and it is quite a large from garden and
There is there is space in my opinion that they would be able to provide those four spaces as well as the manoeuvring
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:51:52
Okay, and my final question is about the lands part of it.
The question I'd ask, do we know that the applicant stated they fully owned the site within the red line or not?
Because if they didn't, sorry, if they don't own some of that land and they ticked the box to say they did,
that creates a major problem for us to make a decision on this.
So that's that is an important one.
And also just to clarify the rear garden is totally going to be attached to these flats as their open space and not something random.
So that has to be delivered if we were giving the permission on this.
So I'm just checking the application form. Just give me a moment and I'll come back to you on that point.
Thank you.
you do that I'm gonna go to Council Townsend and then we'll we'll start the
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:53:05
question so cancer Townsend a couple of points firstly on the parking I
appreciate the highways report says they think that the appropriate size parking
spaces could be provided with minor amendments. Note your proposed condition
but that condition states prior to first use of the development is there a reason
why you couldn't make that condition prior to commencement of the development
because what we all don't want to see is a situation where the development takes
place and then they go actually sorry we can't fit in those four parking spaces
of the right size and also looking at the plans that you put up of those parking spaces
and the four that are there, they look to me like they'd be very difficult to manoeuvre.
Are those parking spaces capable of all being moved in and out of without other cars having
to be moved at the same time to let somebody out? That was my first point.
That was the opinion of the highways officer, they're the experts in manoeuvring and highway
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:54:15
matters but they haven't seen the plans of the correct size surely yes but they
consider that if they if they were there's a slight increase in the spaces
that when it's not a huge a huge jump in the size of the parking spaces and with
those with that increase in size they still considered that there would be
sufficient manoeuvring space and able to provide to exit and enter their sites
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:54:41
okay and the wording of the condition is there a reason why it can't be prior to
commencement of the development?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:54:43
Generally speaking, the guidance is we don't put
pre -commencement conditions unless it's necessary.
So the reason for the condition is to secure
the level of parking.
The level of parking won't be required
until the development is brought into use.
And as we are happy that the parking can be provided
and we just, from a technical point of view,
just need to make sure that they're laid out
to the right size, then it wouldn't be reasonable to require it to be prior to commencement.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:55:17
Okay. Then just coming back to the point of over -intensification, which is obviously the issue that the councillors and residents, the parish council have raised.
I note at paragraph 5 .18 of your report, your professional opinion is that the comings and goings of residents reflects that of a single occupation dwelling.
My question is to what extent have you assessed the increase of things like resident manoeuvring, visitor manoeuvring, deliveries, because that's something that a single household gets many of per day if we're talking about for the deliveries thing is a big one I think.
refuse, vehicle movements generally associated with the site.
How much detail have you gone into in terms of calculating that in your professional assessment?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:56:06
Those type of movements are quite common in a residential area.
This isn't a street which is like a very quiet cul -de -sac,
or somewhere where you've got a row of bungalows and that's all there is in the street.
It's a relatively well -used road,
and we don't consider that the increase in activity
would be to such a degree that it would be harmful.
It's quite a common situation to have flats such as this
in a residential street, and they wouldn't be harmful
to the extent of a result in a level of disturbance
which would be so.
basically so so
Problematic that it would justify refusing planning permission. Is there a calculation or a minimum threshold that you know, it's a judgement
but it wouldn't
go I suppose we're coming from experience and
the
similar applications planning inspectors wouldn't wouldn't support a reason for issues or the if it was related to
to knowings and disturbance resulting
from additional free dwellings.
I'm just gonna move back to Councillor Townsend's point
about conditions, I think it's a really important point.
Cllr David Moore - 0:57:25
Why aren't we resolving the parking access issues now
than having a condition that could,
frankly, could be worded better?
Why can't we resolve these now,
or at least have a, prior to commencing permission?
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:57:39
Well, it is for the decision makers to make that judgement.
I'm just giving you the officer's opinion as to why we decided that a condition would be
appropriate in this instance and why we've chose to do it prior to
occupation rather than prior to use, rather than prior to commencement.
You know, that's... we're looking at from experience and from the guidance is we look to provide
conditions which meet the tests and that are reasonable.
So when we're looking at that, you also have to look at when the condition or the details are required to be submitted.
So, for example, if it's an issue where the details are necessary to be submitted prior to commencement, such as, for example, levels,
so you want finished floor levels of the new dwelling, then that makes sense to have it prior to commencement,
because you can't build it until you know what the levels are.
However, in this case, the car parking spaces won't be needed until the use is commenced.
So that's why that's worded as it is.
In terms of the question as to why we haven't got a plan before, as we've assessed the application
and as said earlier, the guidance is that we shouldn't refuse planning permission if
a matter can be resolved by condition.
and in this case that matter can be resolved by condition as set out by the highway officer and
Therefore as it can be resolved by condition
we didn't feel that was a
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:59:21
Strong a good enough reason to refuse permission. Can I come at it from a different angle? What if
you the work is done and
You actually discover you know that the highway's officer was wrong and it's not capable of
Mr Ben Robinson - 0:59:37
Providing those four parking spaces what happens then? I
Mean as a sort of hypothetical question
but the highway officer wouldn't wouldn't have recommended the condition if they didn't feel that the
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:59:47
Parking spaces could be provided but I suppose wouldn't it just be
Prudent to get all that checked before any work. It's carried out. Just get it all signed off and
Then we can all be content that the parking works
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:00:00
It's preferable but that's different. Sometimes what I would prefer or you would prefer doesn't necessarily amount to a reason to refuse planning permission.
So we got to assess the application and if matters that have cropped up during the course of the application can be resolved by condition, that's what we should do.
Cllr David Moore - 1:00:24
I think we'll I think we can move on to that as well at the debate stage but
very pertinent points we've got Councillor Roberts and then Councillor
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:00:31
Tett then Councillor Holden and Councillor Matthews. Most of my points are exactly
what my colleague here has just been raising. This isn't an outline
application it's a full application and I would be expecting us to be taking a
decision on the parking solution for that full application and we're not
seeing that reserve that judgement to debate but I was going to ask the other
aspect of it would be could we not defer this until would that be a route forward
that we defer it and make the recommendation to approve subject to
submission of a parking solution that the highways so you meet it and in fairy
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:01:19
You could defer it I
Am mindful that we have a lot of applications to bring to committee and it would be an additional one in future
and also the officer time but also
You would have to take the risk that if you did defer it
the applicant would be entitled to appeal non -determination of the application and
potentially
see
I'd argue that that would be unreasonable given that the highway officer is stated that the
Front garden is capable of providing the four spaces and it can be resolved by condition. I
was thinking more differing and delegating actually that I
mean you could you could
Yes, I suppose
if if you if it was an issue that you were
fundamentally worried about
you could defer and delegate to officers to grant permission subject to the submission of a
layout which met the compliant that comply with the
parking standards
That would probably be preferable than bringing it back to committee, you know
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:02:33
Just gonna ask officers but
Would it be preferable to do just to change the condition
to prior to commencement of development rather than to defer?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:02:45
If members wish to do that, that's in their power to do so as the decision maker.
It's your decision as to what the wording of the condition.
Like, you know, I've given you my reasons why we've recommended the condition as it is.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:03:02
So so what I was trying to get out was what the options are that we could discuss during debate
Cllr David Moore - 1:03:08
I think I think that can be something in the in front of us the debate we can discuss but it's good very good to
Know that that would potentially be an option if we minded to
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:03:17
Council Rob's any more questions. Yes. I just wanted to clarify on the on the character question
The
the
Some of the speakers raised of what was effectively around the lived experience of the area
as opposed to the appearance and I just want to clarify that it's the appearance of the street scene, that's the
predominant
Issue from the point of view of assessing character
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:03:46
predominantly, you know, they would there may be occasions where you know if a
Use was completely at odds with what what was there that?
that it is something that could form a basis
of a refused permission.
For example, if you were to stick a children's nursery
on a quiet cul -de -sac or something like that,
where there's lots of coming and goings.
But in this case, it's free dwellings,
which is not significant,
so in terms of the level of movement
that would be taking place,
such that it would change the character.
Cllr David Moore - 1:04:22
And just go back to council waters outstanding question
Have we got an answer to that? We've been distracting you. Sorry. I've been distracted by answering questions
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:04:34
This is guarding the the boundary
Yes, whether which box was ticked is the boundary basically are they stating they do the boundary?
Because there was a conflict coming from a statement that's been made saying they don't
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:04:54
depends what you've ticked in the box on there on your declaration of what we're actually
looking at.
If they say, actually, we don't but the X is happening, that's a different thing altogether.
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:05:06
I'm just trying to find on the council's web and the council's file, the application form.
unfortunately the relevant bits redacted so I'm not able to see it at this time
so I as it as it with the information in front of me I'm not I'm not able to
answer that question well I think it's important as a committee we get to know
Cllr David Moore - 1:05:38
that information what your thoughts council waters I think it's in
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:05:42
It's important that we do know what what actually the red line is telling us
Agree, and we normally do know that it's ownership quite often. It may be a big developer who doesn't own anything at all
But they make that clear in advance and we're making decision on a site
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:06:04
So normally what the applicant of as you said at Aviva signed at the declaration to say that they on the land
in its entirety of serve notice on any
But other owners of the land I might need if we were to
Adjourn for five minutes. I may be able to see if there's a technical issue that I can resolve
Cllr David Moore - 1:06:28
I think that if you're minded council waters, I would be yeah, I just think we'd be nice. Yeah, I agree
We we should know what's actually big because it's being raised
And if actually there is a neighbour that owns the land
then that might make a difference in terms of whether you have the parking
space or you don't for the manoeuvring or other things so it's it is important.
All in favour of an adjournment to ascertain that information. All those in
favour all those against. Abstentions? I suppose I technically abstain. Okay
that's that's carried we'll have a quick five minute. Sorry. Just the chair we have
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:07:05
not determined this application so it shouldn't be discussed while we have the
the adjournment. Thank you. Talk about the weather. Thanks.

4 PL/25/2276/FA - 27 Moorfield Road, Denham Green, Buckinghamshire, UB9 5NE

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:07:14
Now we'll recommence. We have an answer. Thank you for your
Cllr David Moore - 1:07:19
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:07:24
patience. Ben, would you like to proceed? Thank you, Chair. I
apologies for the short adjournment. I just needed to
find the place on the on the file. The applicant when
submitting the application, they signed certificate B and serve
notice on the highway authority for so essentially that would be for the sort of site dogleg towards the rear of the sites
Which was outside their ownership so not on that basis procedurally
We consider that the application has has been correctly submitted
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:07:55
Council waters you have any further to add on that you quickly explain that a little bit more so what they actually submitted
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:08:00
They've said so so on an application form when when you when you submit an application you either submit you either
signed certificate A which is essentially to certify that you own all the land
that's within the application site. So they've said B. Or you sign certificate B and you stipulate who any other
land owners or those with an interest in the land that you've served notice on.
So in this case they've listed the Highway Authority or Booking
So that's the correct decision.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:08:36
So Bucks Council is the owners of it, is what you're saying?
Councillor Tett.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:08:41
Just for clarification, could the officer just describe
on the map the land we're talking about?
And also, is the council required,
if notice has been served, to therefore allow the applicants
to purchase the land, free access across it, or what?
No, I'm aware elsewhere. Just I'm aware of other cases in the county where planning applications have been agreed subsequently
They've come to the council and the council's refused access across the land
That isn't always the case depending on the width of the land that the council must provide access
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:09:20
It's it's a procedural requirement, but it's it's not necessarily relevant to the assessment of the application say
For example, somebody could apply for planning permission to build a new dwelling in your
back garden.
I understand.
As long as they've served notice, even if they granted, as long as they've served notice,
procedurally the application would have been dealt with correctly.
Just on the map, sorry, just to go back to my question, could you just outline on the
map the land we're talking about?
I assume this bit, so you've got the existing plot with the boundary here and then you've
got this dogleg.
So as mentioned by some of the speakers, previously the application did include two dwellings
to the rear of the site which was removed from the application following advice from
officers.
So this appears to be a sort of angle.
It would it would it would have it would have provided an access to why is it still there?
It's because it's it's part of the application site
So they've left it essentially left that's on but it doesn't in my opinion
It doesn't change the nature of the application because it's still for
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:10:34
Sorry, let me just ask one quick supplementary because it goes to the heart of an earlier question
Which is the two houses have been withdrawn from this application
But the access road into those two properties has been retained in this application. Is that correct?
Yeah, the access road hasn't been retained as such
it's the the
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:10:53
Application site hasn't changed but the access road and the access is did up from part the development because it's not in the description of development
say if we were to grant permission they
Wouldn't have permission to do that, but they would have the access road
No, they would have the access path
No, no, the application isn't for that.
The application is for what's in the description of development.
It's just that the application site is larger than it needs to be.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:11:21
I'm sorry, I'm just confused.
Just bear with me slightly because I may be being very simple on this.
I can understand they wanted that little tail, yep, when there was going to be two properties
in the rear of the site.
Get that entirely, yep.
Those two properties have been withdrawn from this application, yep.
We're considering this application but the pathway to the rear of a width suitable for a car access
Has been retained. Is that correct?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:11:51
The the actual part they're not actually proposing a pathway as part parts of this application
So there's not it's not proposed to as part of this application
I think the confusion is they've retained the red edge where that pathway would have been had they
Proceeded with the original scheme, but has they've taken that off
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:12:17
This application wouldn't allow for the provision of an access in that location because it does that like quite a but the issue
so what they have retained is
When they said what the red line includes it includes land owned by Bucks Council and the land owner Bucks Council
Is that potential access point which is left on here? So they don't actually have that at this point in time
but are not ruling it out for the future.
That would be for Bucks to make a decision outside of this committee if they ever sold it,
but it's what is left there.
It doesn't need to be there.
Actually, the red line doesn't need to go there, but they decided to keep the red line there.
So that is because of the decision of the red line.
That's why an additional owner is involved in the process and being served,
and they'll have to make a decision on what they do.
I've got two minutes waited very patiently.
Cllr David Moore - 1:13:09
Councillor Matthews, you still got your question from earlier,
then Councillor Hogg, then Councillor Roberts,
then Councillor Hynde.
Thank you.
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:13:17
On this particular point, is it possible to condition
that the use of that land at the rear of it
is conditioned to be used by those residents
rather than any possible access from the rear?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:13:31
You could, yes, you could put a condition on to say
that the rear garden area as shown on the plan
shall be only be used for purposes as a garden for them for the flats.
Cllr David Moore - 1:13:47
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:13:47
I've just got one other quick question. In flat C the bedroom is at the rear and that is shown as having large big open windows for the ceiling.
Is that that is the access to their private bit of land at the back because I couldn't see any other access route
Which which flat were you talking about that one moment?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:14:21
Say is that that's on the ground floor. Yes. Yes say if we go
So they
So as you can see, C would be here.
So the flats on the ground floor would have their own
private amenity area.
So immediately to the rear of the flat would be available
for them.
The access to the flat would be to the side
of the property.
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:14:52
So they'd have to go through the bedroom to get to their
amenity space?
Yeah.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:15:02
Councillor Hogg you've been waiting very patiently. I have a really basic question
but I'm curious to know the answer. I had understood that the draught Buckinghamshire
local plan has some weight in planning applications now but I don't see it on
the policy considerations list and what I do see on the list and again other
members of this other members of this committee will probably know the answer
this already but I don't. There is a bullet point for the draught Chiltern and
South Bucks local plan up to 2036 which was rejected and I noticed that it's not
on other applications that we are looking at this evening so I'm just a
bit confused about when the new local plan will start to have wait and why
that particular one is in the the draught Chilterns one is included when it's not
in other applications.
Just bear with me one moment.
So I'm just looking, it refers to the Chiltern and Southbrooks Community Infrastructure Levy
and the Chiltern and Southbrooks Townscape Character Study, but not the local plan.
Shouldn't it now mention the local plan, considering the government?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:16:47
Yeah, that's an error. That shouldn't be in there. Apologies for that.
To confirm, what's not supposed to be in there? What should be in it?
What shouldn't be there is the draught South,
draught Chiltern and South Park's local plan 2036.
That's not relevant to the,
that's no longer, that was abandoned essentially,
so it doesn't carry any weight in the determination.
So that's a correction.
Shouldn't have been in the reports.
So the local plan should,
The current local plan doesn't carry weight at this time,
but once
Once it
Goes further into the process. It will start carrying more weight at the very most at this stage. It would be limited weight
Yes, correct limited weight, but it's not on the list here at all. If it carries limited weight should be on the list
I just didn't notice anything from the new local plan
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:17:49
I certainly didn't see anything from the new design code the Buckinghamshire design code connected to this at all
No, we haven't we haven't referenced the when I think when the report was drafted the local plan was still
consultation stage
Say at that point it would have it wouldn't have carried weight
Sorry that according to the MPPF
It would have it would it did carry weights from the moment it went into the section or regulation 19
Consultation that's why I was expecting to see it here. I noticed that the NPPF the latest one from August the
18th
2026 is included
So I'm wondering why the new Buckinghamshire local plan hasn't been as it is in the MPPF
That once it goes into the regulation 19 it has limited weight and I'm not seeing this included in the officers report at all
Yes, that's an omission from the report
So that can be so just to come just to clarify then that's a big omission because that is the entire Buckinghamshire local plan
That's been omitted when it does have limited weight
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:19:02
Given given it carries limited weight at this time
I don't consider that the policies within it would would give grounds would
result in a different a different decision
What if we can add it to the report at least that that's in the policy mix and
Yeah, I was gonna was
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:19:23
It's the the MPPF the current MPPF that is
is predominant here in policy.
We do have the Regulation 19 stage local plan,
but that's of limited weight.
But I don't consider, I'd have to defer to officers,
that any of those policies would provide
a strong enough reason for refusal
to overcome the substantial benefits
that is articulated in the new NPPF, is that right?
That's how I would review it.
Correct.
Okay, but we haven't seen that in the report.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:19:56
that is for the planning committee to decide whether those policies and whether that design code has
Enough weight to override the fact that we're not even able to debate it this evening
Rather
limits stunts our ability to make a
Full analysis of whether we should give this application permission or not
It limited weight means you have to include it in the offices report and we need to be able to see it
And then we decide how much weight to give it or not
It should form part of the evidence base for your decision -making today I would agree with that
I think it is a I think council was absolutely right is as an omission
local plan yes, it is limited weight, but it is part of the policy mix and
Cllr David Moore - 1:20:49
documents that we are provided today we have to make a decision based on and
assess the merits based on those policies so it is concerning
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:21:06
councillor Roberts just to clarify this point from officers perspective would
you consider that there's anything in the regulation 19 local plan that would
materially
Go against the MPPF considerations that have been addressed in this application
No, I don't consider there would be
anything in the
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:21:33
the draught local plan which which would substantially outweigh the benefits as
so in the report
say
the
The the MPPF sets out the in addition to the any any local plan policies
the the MPPF does set out a number of benefits which need to be given weight in the decision and
substantial weight in this case and
That's that needs to be taken into account in the balance and then also the in the overall balance
If it because it's in a settlement you have to you have to show that any any harm would be or adverse effects would
substantially outweigh those benefits?
Yeah, and the reason I asked the question
was my understanding is that the national policy
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:22:23
outweighs the local policy,
and that was the reason for my question.
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:22:30
Yes, what the MPPF says is that if there's a conflict
between the MPPF and the local plan policy,
then you would give the local plan policy
very limited weight.
How does this affect the housing supply question then if the local plan is now
added to the policy mix?
So again you would give limited weight to that say it
doesn't it we were still unable to demonstrate the failure housing land
supply and that remains an issue that needs to be weighed in the balance.
I'm gonna move to I'm gonna move two more questions is any more questions on the
before because I think there's a lot to discuss at the debate so Councillor
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:23:18
than Councillor Waters. Yes thank you I think you've asked most of my question
because I am my first my immense admiration to Councillor Hogg for
noting what he has noted in this. I guess to the officer do you feel this
committee can actually make an informed judgement on this application and maybe
this also has to go to the legal officer based on the fact that we have first of
within here an item that has no relevance whatsoever the withdrawn plan
that was withdrawn five six years ago now yep and which had no status
whatsoever but seems to form part of the evidence base has been put forward to us
and at the same time the current local plan reg 19 which is clearly a cost it
should be cost limited weight it's not part of the evidence base that we've been
given and as the chairman has said one of the key elements within that is the
relevance of the five -year land supply and potentially the design guide. I'm
just concerned that we're being asked to make an ill -informed decision based on
those two factors so my question to the officers collectively is you know do
they feel we can make such an informed decision when two substantial errors it
have been made in the report?
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:24:37
So in my professional opinion,
I do not consider the local plan or the policies
within the draught local plan would give rise to
identified adverse effects which would be sufficient
to substantially outweigh the benefits,
but it would be for the members to make the decision.
And if you don't feel that you've got the information
to make the decision, then that's your decision to make.
That's something for us to decide at the debate stage.
Thank you for confirming that.
Laura, would you like to come on?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:25:10
I just was gonna say, it's the policy basis,
and there is unfortunately a reference
to the South Bucks plan, which is no longer used,
as it was withdrawn.
But it is the MPPF, the new MPPF,
that provides the strong policy,
the policy basis for this application.
The limited weight of the local plan,
I think we've heard from the officers
that it would not provide any reason for refusal
that would overcome the substantial benefits
that the scheme is providing.
So that is their professional advice to you.
That is something you'll have to take into account
when you go through the debate.
Council Waters.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:25:55
Yeah, I think it's a shame that
that document has been missed and hasn't been properly assessed.
But actually, if you added the document, it wouldn't actually change much of what is said today,
because a lot of housing that is going to take place in the south will happen in built -up areas.
The character element of it would not change within the design code.
The parking would not change within the new document.
So actually, when you assessed it, that wouldn't make much of a difference.
and we do need to deliver on these urban areas a high proportion which is not
allotted, I've forgotten the number of how many thousand houses it is that come
through this method. So it wouldn't mean there wouldn't be pressure in delivering
in the same way, it just won't be just a clear statement of us not having the
five -year housing supply, it will be within the local plan you have out of
91 ,000 X number which has to be delivered in this way. So it's not that significant
difference. It's a shame it wasn't assessed properly because I don't think it would actually
change anything but it is I think quite a major slip that we don't have it in there.
It means you haven't done the assessment and then delivered it to us after the assessment
and we're reading a document that doesn't have that because it should be in the document and
and that's the problem.
Cllr David Moore - 1:27:21
I think this is a natural move to the debate now
and very important points raised.
And I think the start of the questions the officers
and the start of what we were talking about,
we've spoken a bit about the access issues
and potential conditions,
but I think what Councillor Hogg has raised,
Councillor Tett said, is a very important point
and it's actually kind of substantially changed
what we've been saying in terms of
We have to have the facts in front of us the entire policy makes in front of us and the fact that it does carry
Some weight and it's up to us as members to make that decision
summing up that weight
And the absence of a local plan it is a shame. It's not been mentioned and especially when it's hit reg 19
Is any member would like to start us off the council?
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:28:07
I think it could well be that the local plan wouldn't have made any difference
here but there's no there's no argumentation from the planning
officers about why it's not I got that they've not mentioned any policy in the
local plan and explained why that it this application works with it or it
wouldn't override the MPPF all we've got is a single sentence from the planning
officers saying in their general view none of the none of the policies are
affecting this particular application. Well I know in the design code that
one it's in the new local plan design code it specifically states there need
to be assessments made and yes those assessments are they're smaller if it's
for a single house or a single dwelling,
but still there needs to be assessments made on character,
there needs to be assessment made on visual attractiveness,
and this application has not done either of those things,
and that's just from the top of my head knowledge.
It's not even counting in all of the rest
of the hundreds of pages of the local plan.
So I admit, I accept that it's limited weight,
But to say just a blanket without us being able to debate it that no it's not you know, it's all fine
We just go ahead. Anyway, I
Feel uncomfortable with that on the one hand. I don't like bureaucracy. I want to get through the backlog
I want to move ahead on the other hand
You know, we need to make sure that we're able to do our jobs properly
hopefully.
Councillor TET.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:29:59
Yeah, I share a lot of Councillor Hogg's concerns about this report frankly, and I
don't like making decisions based on incomplete analysis and facts.
Having said that, my main concern with this is actually around the parking.
If I just bring us back to some of the detail.
If members are minded to agree this, which they may or may not, but if they are minded
to agree it. I believe we should insert we should change the condition such that
actually we are assured that the four that the correct size parking spaces in
line with council parking policy can be provided on this site and will be
provided on this site. What I'm just worried about is what we've seen
elsewhere which is where at some stage the applicant comes back and just asks
for a variation on condition it looks very minor it's waved through and
actually we end up with completely insufficient parking on the site so I'd
like to make that a precondition rather than a post condition on the approval
Cllr David Moore - 1:31:10
were members to be so minded to do so I think we've taken notes on a number of
the conditions we raised earlier in the meeting if we are minded to approve but
we'll continue with the debate any other cancer Roberts
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:31:22
Yeah, a lot of discussion about character, so I'll address that question first, which
the, having visited the site, it was quite apparent that visually this application as
presented would not be materially different from any of the other properties from the
street scene along. And in fact, things like the roof lights facing the front would be
There are already properties along the street
that already have roof lights there.
So that's not being introduced.
Some of them have got rear dormer windows,
like is proposed here that we've heard
would be permitted development.
So in terms of design and scale and visual appearance,
I'm satisfied from that point of view with it.
I agree about the parking.
I'm loathe to agree to a planning application that's got part of the proposal not presented
to us, which is what we're looking at here, on the assumption that they are going to be
able to come up with a parking solution.
Unless we actually see the parking solution, then I don't think the whole planning permission
should go forward, actually.
and that's the, I'm not sure quite why we've got to this position actually
because it could have been addressed during the planning consideration and
asked for an extra plan to be submitted and as an amendment to it before it came
to the committee but it did come to the committee as is and now I think as the
very minimum we should have the condition change of pre -commencement
Condition that's proposed but I think it would also be legitimate for us to consider whether we should defer and delegate the
granting of
permission
subject to
provision of a compliant parking solution
And so I'd ask other committee members whether they would go that far and ask and support that
amendment to the proposal about pre -commencement condition that's been given.
I think we're in a difficult situation as well, given the missing reference to local
plan.
I think if we did go down the route of considering the forthcoming local plan, then we might
be careful what we wished for because that includes half the number of parking
spaces that are included in this proposal and I'm not sure that we would
be very happy about that in relation to this but that is what the new parking
standards say so I prefer to give this proposal weight on that score rather
than the forthcoming parking standards in the local plan. So that's the position
that I'm in. I'm minded towards if I was being able to supporting approval of the
permission based on what we hear about the other members views about the
pre commencement condition on parking or whether we go further and defer and
delegate subject to a parking solution being provided Thank You councillor
Cllr David Moore - 1:35:09
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:12
Robertson point points made their council waters I think council Roberts
makes some important points and it's probably the direction we would go if we
were going for a permission the other area that has just concerns me and I'd
like to nail it down. I think we talked about having condition in terms of those that rear
garden space being properly allotted definitely to have condition in there to make that absolutely
clear that that's what we're giving permission for the individuals because it looks like
the tiniest gardens you could possibly think of for a couple of flats and then a massive
area at the back for the other two flats. It doesn't quite ring true but I would like
to make sure that is totally clear.
And I think,
I think the officers, they need to make sure
that they are putting in these documents
and properly assessing them in the future.
I think at the moment, the weight is limited
and it gives us some more powers rather than less powers,
as Councillor Roberts says at this point,
particularly on the parking.
And the two things I heard right from the beginning here
as significant were character and parking.
And on both of those,
the reasons wouldn't particularly change
and definitely not change in our favour
in terms of committee making a decision.
So I don't think there are substantial enough negatives
to turn it down if it went to appeal.
So I would go and support Councillor Robert's view.
Thank you, Councillor Waters,
Cllr David Moore - 1:36:46
and we have taken note of both those conditions,
suggestions, but I appreciate they're not formal motions
as of yet, but before we go to that,
is there anyone, any other members would like to add
to what we've heard?
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 1:37:00
Yeah, I agree with the comments made
by my fellow councillors in the issues relating
to the nature of the report and the lack of information,
adequate, accurate information that's within it,
which makes me feel extremely uncomfortable about having to make a decision.
I accept that the proper report would probably not have changed very much,
but it really makes you feel uncomfortable that you're being given information by officers
that should be properly considered and accurate, and it isn't, and that really is not helpful.
but I think there's nothing here that we can adequately use to reject the
occasion and therefore I would be proposed to support it given the
additional conditions that relate to parking and the land at the back thank
Cllr David Moore - 1:38:00
you Thank You councillor Matthews I care what you say I think it's so important
as members we get all the facts in front of us because we have to make a decision
to the information of the policy mix in front of us and even if it is limited
That is very important. Although I do sympathise with what you just said as well about the scope of refusal
Even if the local plan was added
But it is so important that it is in that mix and I thank Councillor hog for bringing that to our attention a very Hawk
Hawk ish. I
As you've made a formal proposal Councillor Matthews, I'm gonna let the
If I may Laura you could sum up the conditions that we have spoken about already
about the
pre -commencement conditions.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:38:38
So I believe what was articulated by the,
by Councillor Matthews was that it would be a recommendation
for approval in accordance with the conditions provided
except for the condition on parking
would be a pre -commencement condition
rather than a prior to occupation condition.
And to add a condition that would ensure
that the rear space is allotted for use of the residence.
the dwellings of the dwellings is that correct? Would that be a defer and
delegate? It would be a defer and delegate no it would be so it would just
be subject to those conditions being included but would you want it?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:39:24
Councillor Townsend? Is there any practical difference between it being a
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:39:29
condition or defer and delegate? If we defer and delegate then we're
simply saying once we have that information,
sorry, we're asking for those conditions to be added,
so they would be added, and then it would be.
And I suppose the wording in consultation
with the chairman and the director of planning
would be defer and delegate, wouldn't that be right?
Certainly, it would be in that sense, yes.
Mr Ben Robinson - 1:39:55
If it was a defer and delegate,
I think essentially we would be asking
for the information prior to issuing the decision
on the planning permission,
Whereas if it's the condition, you would be asking it to be submitted prior to commencement
of the work, so we would issue the decision and then the information would be provided
prior to commencement.
I think there's another option as well which has been mentioned, is defer and delegate
subject to approval by the Chair.
I think we'd have to be a little bit careful given the cut -off point at the end of October
for decisions to be made not by planning committee.
So I just wanted to raise that as a potential.
We've got a month and two weeks,
which I think is, it's not, it's a tight deadline,
but it's not a possible deadline.
I suppose it just opens up a potential procedural issue
as once, if the plan wasn't submitted in time,
if which is I know there's this sort of six weeks, but if it wasn't submitted in time then the
It would have to revert to office so you recommend we should make that decision today with the conditions as it's as it's a
It's a technical issue
which needs to be resolved and I do feel that a condition which
which required the submission of the details
prior to commencement would resolve the issue
that you'd raised earlier,
which is that the development wouldn't then be constructed
prior to the potential for the details
to be on the correct size parking spaces
having been provided.
But it would be, if you were doing that condition,
it would be for the details of the car parking spaces
to be provided prior to commencement and then the actual car parking space to be laid out
prior to the commencement or prior to the occupation because it was not always practical
to provide the parking spaces while they're still constructing development.
Councillor Roberts.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:42:11
Yes, if I can just explain my thinking and then I'd like to make a proposal to defer and delegate
to officers and see if anyone wishes to second that.
If I explain my logic on this, that approach...
That was Councillor Matthew's proposal.
We already have a proposal.
We have a motion on the...
The motion is live.
I'm proposing to amend that then.
To be a...
To defer and delegate to officers with the same conditions attached.
Is that an amendment or actually a negative?
It should only amend the existing motion.
So if you were deferring and delegating say
so which which is fine and officers will then make sure that the
layout
conforms with the
Requirements prior to prior to decision the condition would then change
Because the condition would then require that the development the car parking spaces to be laid out in accordance with the approved plan
rather than requiring the submission of further details because it wouldn't be
it would bypass the need for further... The key difference is if we agree
today to grant permission subject conditions then permission is granted. If
we defer and delegate then permission is not granted unless those conditions are
Cllr David Moore - 1:43:32
met. But then I suppose is there the risk if we defer and delegate that the
applicant couldn't theoretically withdraw and then reapply after the 31st of October or
So it would put us in a more
You think that's a more riskier?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 1:43:46
I think it's better for decision -making if we simply are clear on what conditions we want to secure
And then that decision will reflect that and then I would sympathise with that but council Roberts is your it's your call
if if members
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:44:00
prefer to go that way then
Cllr David Moore - 1:44:08
I'll defer to that. I think if there wasn't the 31st of October looming deadline, there would be in a bit of a different situation
But we're having to essentially as a decision -making body make that decision quickly before that that change comes in
So I revert back to councillor Matthews is
Proposal that's now live. Are there any other?
Proposals or any seconders to that? I just want a second councillor Matthews
proposal Thank You councillor tech
Well, if there are no other proposals, we'll move to a vote.
All in favour of Councillor Matthews' proposal
that we approve this application subject to the conditions
that the legal officer has just read out.
All those against?
And abstentions?
Two.
That motion is carried.
Thank you everyone. Thank you speakers. Thank you members. Thank you officers.

5 ITEM WITHDRAWN PL/25/3366/FA - Capelstones, 2A High Beeches, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 7HU

Cllr David Moore - 1:45:06
Thank you.
Thank you.

6 PL/25/6386/FA - 61 Vine Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4DW

We now move on to agenda item 6, which is PL -25 -6386 -FA61, Vine Road, Stoke Pogges, Buckinghamshire, SL24DW.
Cllr David Moore - 1:45:53
I'm going to hand over to Hugo when he's ready, who is going to introduce the item.
Hugo Woodley - 1:45:58
We also have three speakers on this application.
Thank you for coming.
Councillor Dinnan cannot be here to speak on the application, so there will be a written
statement after the officer's presentation.
Thank you, Chairman.
So I just like to update the committee first hand by saying that
Following the previous discussion. There is also no reference to the draught local plan in this report as well
It is considered that it is material but it does still carry limited weight in the assessment. I do apologise for the oversight
So 61 vine Road the proposal is for the demolition and replacement with a new dwelling
It is part retrospective and it is an alternative scheme to that previously approved.
So it's in the built -up area of Stoke Poges located on Vine Road opposite this junction
as you can see in the image.
It's in the suburban townscape character and I'd just like to flag the history of the site
because it's very convoluted.
There's been numerous enforcement issues.
First of all, the application site had permission for numerous extensions.
These were granted and the applicant subsequently demolished the house in its entirety.
Subsequent retrospective permission was granted in February,
and an alternative scheme was refused in October 2024.
4 and an alternative scheme was refused in October 2025.
So of material consideration is the previously approved mission which has been implemented
or is in the process of being implemented.
On the screen you have what was already granted permission.
So top left you have the front elevation, bottom left rear and the other sides as well.
So the application before us proposes some slight variations that were originally approved.
We have, for instance, the four roof lights you can see in the bottom left corner to the
rear on the roof.
We have the fenestration alterations on the flank elevation, as well as this protrusion
at the rear of about three metres which you can see better on the floor plan here.
So this rear protrusion equates to about 13 square metres approximately.
So here's just a highlight. What is on the plan is basically what has been granted permission
except that set out in yellow. So we have the rear protrusion, we have the windows on the flank,
and we have the roof lights at the top.
There's also numerous internal alterations that you can see,
for example the conversion of the loft space,
or the...
the...
so it's being turned into habitable space in the roof,
but there is no more mass or bulk
to what has previously been accepted.
So of note is obviously the previously refused application,
and you can see here the flank fenestrations were included.
You can also see in the bottom left
this large, bulky rear dormer,
which is also one of the side elevations you can see.
And a slight difference is this enlargement
of the two -storey side element.
So the current scheme has obviously removed
the dormer and the side element
back to what was previously approved.
And the main reason for refusing the previous application
was the increase in bulk and mass and then it is considered that due to this
removal there is no no further reason to refuse the application. So members would
have noticed on site yesterday that there is currently undergoing building
works this is the front of the site and obviously it's opposite the junction so
it's very prominent. It hasn't to my knowledge having spoken to some of the
residents a few weeks ago it has not changed since about January of this year
And this is the rear and on the left you can see the side down the side and the
rear is the garden area. And of course there is a large structure there that is
an out building that is not part of this application. It has been previously
reviewed by enforcement and it was considered that this out building met
the criteria for permitted development.
So as such is the officer's recommendation that permission be granted
subject to the conditions contained within the officer's report. Thank You
Cllr David Moore - 1:50:54
Hugo we have three speakers here today considering the history of this site I'm
surprised and disappointed that the applicant isn't here. Anyway first
speaker will be Councillor Dillon sadly can't be here due to urgent hospital
Mr Harry Thomas - 1:51:13
appointments so Harry's going to kindly read out his statement. Thank you.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to address the committee and I'd like to
share concerns of the residents and parish council that must be scrutinised.
I hope committee members have been shown the complete physical development that
exists on this site. There's a substantial outbuilding at the rear of
the site. The new application will take an extension six and a half to seven
metres and comply with planning application in front of you. Any previous application
didn't have the benefit of a detached outbuilding and would make a material change when considering
this application. A number of residents and the parish council has raised this previously,
though planning officers responded by saying that works outside the application could be
considered separately by planning enforcement, but respectfully that does not answer the
planning question before members today.
I would like members as they consider and request officers to clarify first is the outbuilding
lawful?
Does that building physically occupy parts of this residential plot?
Clearly it does.
Has the outbuilding actually been included in that assessment?
Where is the plan showing the proposed house, rear projection and existing outbuilding together?
Where is the calculation showing how much genuinely usable garden remains?
This matters because the Stoke Pogue's design codes specifically identify substantial back gardens as part of the character of this area
It also matters under EP 3 and h9 concerning layout density scale and residential amenity
I'm asking members to require the facts to be established and
members are being asked to approve a part retrospective application
surely before doing so you should be able to see one accurate plan showing everything that currently occupies this site and
Exactly what garden and landscaping will remain?
If that information is not clear, how can members confidently conclude that the resulting
development complies with the development plan?
Thank you.
Thank you, Harry.
Cllr David Moore - 1:53:05
We now move to our next speaker.
Sally, we can't ask questions.
So we now have Councillor Sara Carter, who is chair of Stoke Pochus Paris Council, come
here to speak.
You have three minutes.
Green is three minutes, amber is 30 seconds, and red means your time is up.
Public Speaker - 1:53:20
You may start when ready.
OK.
My colleagues have addressed some of the issues around character and the true
extent of development on this site. I want to finish, I was actually meant to
be last I'm sorry, I want to finish with biodiversity, parking and the reliability
of the information before you. First biodiversity net gain. Under the
previous application the council's ecology officer identified a 52 .95 net
loss in habitat units
That was a sit that was serious enough to become one of the council's formal reasons for refusal
The current application now identifies a significantly lower figure of approximately 10 .4 for habitat loss
We accept that this is an improvement
but it remains a loss on a development subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain and
And this site lies within the South Bucks Heaths and Parklands Biodiversity Opportunity
Area where call strategy CP9 specifically seeks enhancement and net gain.
The Council's Ecology Officer has continued to ask how the required gain will be achieved,
so members should ask how will a 10 .44 % loss become the required diversity net gain.
and given the reported removal of all trees and vegetation from this site our
members satisfied at the biodiversity baseline itself is robust. Secondly
concerns around parking the report says this five bedroom dwelling which is out
of kilter with the rest of the street, they do not contain five bedroom
dwellings, requires three spaces but refers to provisions for two creating a
one space deficit. Yet the Highway Authority consultation refers to a plan showing three
parking bays, which is correct, two spaces or three. Perhaps there is an explanation,
but members should have that explanation before, not after granting planning permission. That
brings us to the central concern shared by all three speakers today. This is a part retrospective
application with a complicated planning history spanning between four and five years. There
are questions about the actual outbuilding, questions about the true remaining garden,
questions about the diversity baseline and how the requirement gain will be delivered
and conflicting information about parking. So before voting we respectfully ask every
member to consider, do we know the true total footprint of the development on this site?
Do we know how much usable garden will actually remain?
Are we satisfied that the biodiversity information is robust?
Do we know whether this proposal provides two parking spaces or three?
Thank you.
Cllr David Moore - 1:56:16
Thank you, Councillor Carter.
Does anyone have any points of clarification addressed to Councillor Carter?
I actually have one actually, if I may ask.
You touched on your speech about biodiversity net gain, how it was a 50 % loss in the old
application that was refused.
Now with the application in front of us it's 10%, 10 .4%.
Public Speaker - 1:56:41
Why in your view is that not achievable or is not going to fulfil the BNG requirements?
I think because there are no conditions attached to it, so we're not sure how that can be delivered.
and being that the applicant removed all trees, shrubs, any greenery from the
garden five years ago, how is that going to be achieved when everything's been
removed? So the baseline is zero. How will the applicant achieve and how
can we be satisfied that that will actually happen? I think from the Parish
Council's perspective, we consistently see that within planning applications generally
there is maybe a planting scheme or maybe a condition attached to planting trees that
have been removed and they don't appear to happen. When we have challenged officers on
this we have been told that they actually don't have the power to insist that the applicant
does as he has submitted. Therefore in this instance we're back to the
situation where we're seeing this happen more and more throughout the village
which is a slow creep into losing biodiversity generally on this property
what is the baseline?
Thank you Councillor Carter. Councillor Hoag.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 1:57:58
Councillor Carter, I wonder if you could provide a bit more context on the
character of the street scene for the committee?
Public Speaker - 1:58:10
So we would consider locally that Vine Road is part of the built form.
There are several roads that are adjacent to it that are similar,
maybe not exactly the same style houses, but they're pretty uniformed.
That the road itself comprises of pairs of semis that are matching,
similar in size.
and we do appreciate as a parish council that more and more now people are extending their homes.
But what we are also very concerned about is our neighbourhood plan very clearly states
that what we are experiencing in State Page is probably quite similar to other areas
is that we are seeing that our demographic balance is being shifted because our
moderate size homes and smaller homes are being significantly increased. Therefore,
that damages the housing stock for people to downsize from bigger properties
to more modest or even younger families or smaller families married couples to
move into modest size houses. So we have concerns around that also. I would also
be very concerned as we do see this happen and we have seen it happen in
entire roads in the state pages where one or two houses have been extended to
the point where they do not sit nicely within the street scene or that they are
out of kilter with the rest of the street and what that does it puts down a
precedent for new people moving into the area and the local authority finds it
increasingly difficult to resist those developments so what we find is that
houses that are of moderate size family houses become actually big
houses, leaving no small houses.
Any other questions?
Thank you Councillor Carle for your time.
We now move to Mrs Dorian Beecum who is an objector, who lives next to the site of the
application.
You have three minutes and you may start when ready.
I would like to concentrate.
You may start with.
Yeah, try another microphone.
Sorry about that.
Thank you. I would like to concentrate on planning history, scale, character and overdevelopment.
I acknowledge that this application is different from PL25 to 158 FA. The large rear dormer
has been removed and the two -storey side element has been reduced, but members should not simply
ask whether this scheme is better than the one refused in November 25. The proper question
is the development now before you acceptable in its own right and does it comply with the
Stoke Poggies Development Plan? The Council's own Previous Officer Assessment is important.
It described Fine Road as a high quality example of suburban road character,
predominantly consisting of modern two -storey semi -detached properties with consistent scale,
height, building lines and a build form. The Stoke Poggies Neighbourhood Plan is equally important.
The site falls within CA1 -CA1 .1 character area and is characterised by detached and
semi -detached houses, substantial back gardens, consistent roof lines and a strong sense of
unity. Members should consider the whole development not merely the elements which have changed
since the previous refusal. This is now a substantial five bedroom dwelling with additional
development at the rear on one half of a traditional semi -detached pair. And there is also an existing
substantial outbuilding occupying part of the rear garden which has been addressed several
times previously but is still not shown on the last Darwin ecology map dated April 2026
which is on the Bucks Council website. The previous officer recommended that the building
should not protrude more than 4 .5 metres from the rear of my conservatory.
With the introduction for the second vegetarian kitchen,
this current plan shows that it will indeed protrude 6 .5 to 7 metres.
So I ask members, does the overall amount of development on this plot
still reflect the modest scale, spaciousness and unity
which your own officers previously identified as characteristics of fine road?
Will this set a precedent and act as a precursor for other similar developments in the locality,
which is in direct conflict with the Stoke Poggis neighbourhood plan?
Importantly, if the character of Vainroyd has not changed and the relevant development
plan policies have not disappeared, are members satisfied that enough has changed on the site
to justify the very different conclusion now being recommended?
I am not asking you simply to repeat the previous refusal.
I urge you to apply the same planning principles consistently to the development which will actually exist on this plot
Thank you
Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Does anyone have any questions of clarification to mrs. Beacon?
Thank you very much, thank you for your time
We now move to questions of clarification to the officers. Does anyone have any points of clarification?
They would like to make council waters
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:03:45
Yeah, there's a few things.
Obviously, it already has a permission,
and what we're mainly looking at here
are the additions to that,
rather than actually something that was turned down,
because actually that will be the additional impact
either on street scene or on the building.
The part of it which, when I looked at it,
is the impact probably on, I think,
the neighbour who's been talking,
where you look at the site,
you've also got this big building that's not showing on here, how much garden is left and
also what impact particularly to any kind of the rear windows. It's definitely well beyond any other
building line, anyone else has got that additional protrusion that's there and
how do we actually say that really conforms because the garden looks like it's really come
down significantly if you're saying the garden in that area is really important, sustaining
the size of it with that great big outbuilding at the bottom that now enforcement of service
is absolutely okay. So we're not considering that, we're considering the garden that's
left with that in it because that actually has already had a ruling, so that should be
part of your consideration and the impact of that back part of it. I think they are,
that is the major change particularly to this new application from the previous one?
Hugo Woodley - 2:05:20
No, of course. So I've done some calculations on the site.
So the total site I've worked out to be about 446 square metres.
The total area free, excluding the dwelling, is 298 square metres.
So there is 66 .9 % of the site is free from development at the moment.
So I would state that that still does retain quite an amply large sized garden.
You have both the grassland or it will be grassland to the front
and you have quite a large residential garden to the rear,
albeit with the outbuilding that of course is not shown.
The rear protrusion, obviously that is definitely the furthest one along in the locality.
The reason we found that acceptable is because it still meets by the 60 degree light angle.
It's the same height as the rear element you see extending off.
There is a separation distance from the boundary and it is in essence policy compliant
that we wouldn't be able to refuse it based on light privacy overbearing
and that's why we found it acceptable in this instance.
Cllr David Moore - 2:06:31
I'm just gonna move in on that council you said just regarding the outbuilding
And surely it's still materially relevant because it in fact the landscaping the space like why isn't it on the plan?
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:06:39
So it's it's relevant in that it's there, but it's not part of the application and the obviously the applicant hasn't shown it but
If those on the site was it saw it yesterday
It's been built under permitted development. So the applicant does have permitted development rights
to build their outbuildings and the enforcement team
have checked it and confirmed that it meets all the
rights to permitted development.
So it's acknowledged that the applicant has chosen
not to put it on the plans, but we still feel
there's sufficient information on the plans
to show what they're actually applying for
and whether or not that, and make an assessment
as to whether or not that's acceptable.
The, even with the outbuilding, as Hugh Gull said,
there's still a fairly reasonable size garden.
There isn't a specific minimum garden size in any event,
but in this case it still would provide
sufficient amenity space for the future occupiers.
So we don't consider that the fact that the extension
is coming out a bit further,
and even with the new outbuilding that they've constructed
would result in a deficient amenity space
for future occupiers.
Cllr David Moore - 2:07:52
So it's still materially relevant?
It's relevant materially in the sense that it's on site.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:07:57
So when making the decision, you can take that into account.
But as I said, it doesn't change really the overall assessment
in that there's still enough garden space remaining.
And it's not like it's in the green belt
where there's a restriction on the overall scale of a building
in relation to the original dwelling.
it's more about looking at the impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the
impacts on neighbouring properties in that respect say in this in this case in terms of neighbours the as as you go said the
the extra single storey element would meet the the sight lines or the
Like the light lines 60 degree to ensure that it wouldn't result in an unacceptable loss of light
Also, it's ever size. It wouldn't be overbearing
It's to the rear of the property so it wouldn't have any discernible impact on the
character of the street scene and overall it wouldn't be, we don't consider it to be
harmful or having a harmful impact.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:09:04
And the second question is going onto the biodiversity side of things.
Obviously by the sound of it it's one of these sites which we see too often where they get
stripped out from all the trees, et cetera,
before applications, but there seems to be
quite a divergence here from a baseline that was there
and now isn't there, but we did have a baseline.
We should be looking at that because that should be
where we are in terms of what needs to be built on
and where is that gonna come from,
and to make sure that we do get the biodiversity
and the net gain from it.
But it should be at a level where what was there
is taken into account rather than the scorched earth policy
that we seem to see there,
which is probably not representative of the local area.
And I think it would be good to know where all that adds up
because that definitely doesn't seem to gel at this point.
So I've just brought up for my benefit
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:10:02
the guidance from the planning practise guidance
that sets out the approach to biodiversity net gain.
It says the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain
involves discharge of the biodiversity gain condition
following the grant of planning permission
to ensure the objective of at least 10 % net gain
will be met for development.
The determination of the biodiversity gain plan
under this condition is the mechanism
to confirm whether the development meets
the biodiversity gain objective.
Development may not begin until the biodiversity gain plan
is approved.
Given this, it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers when determining a planning
application for development subject to biodiversity net gain to refuse an application on the grounds
that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.
So essentially it's saying that the mechanism for ensuring that is the legislative framework
framework for biodiversity, which is subject to the condition, which is a national condition.
So it's not amongst the conditions we apply to the development, it's automatically applied
to the permission, as a matter of law.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:11:24
And that we inform the applicant of that through an informative on the...
But the question is the baseline.
I understand how it goes, but we need to set this as the baseline and then it's dealt with afterwards, but the baseline is X.
So it's not zero or whatever. It's, you know, so having a 10 % gain on a beta grass rather than, you know, various trees, etc., that are already there is a quite different thing to actually take into account.
because you've got to move it forward from there.
I'm not quite sure how we create the baseline of which they get the 10 % gains.
Cllr David Moore - 2:12:01
Sorry to interrupt, but can we say this baseline is even reliable
because we've been told there's potentially removal of vegetation?
How can that be a reliable baseline?
So the ecologist acknowledges that the baseline they've submitted
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:12:14
or the information they've got currently isn't sufficient to meet that biodiversity net gain.
However, as set out in the guidance,
that's something that they can resolve
as part of the biodiversity gain plan
or details that they have to submit.
So what they would have to submit
to comply with that condition
is further details about biodiversity net gain
in terms of establishing the correct baseline
and establishing what the 10 % is.
And then that wouldn't be approved
until that's been submitted
and the 10 % net gain has been shown to be complied with.
And then at that point, they would be able to,
the gain plan would,
by diversity net gain plan would be approved
and they wouldn't be able to start work
until that had been complied with.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:13:05
Okay, but within the previous applications,
different things that have happened
on this site over the years,
do we not have something there that tells us
this is what it was like and this is where we're going?
At the moment, it seems to be
something's gonna be magic from somewhere.
And I'm not really quite sure where.
Thank you, Councillor Waters.
Councillor Tep.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:13:26
Yes, I mean, I share a lot of Councillor Waters' apprehension
about this application.
I do find it, and I have two in my own village
where applications for extensions have been submitted.
And then the houses have actually been demolished.
And then what you get is then applications
for the further extension which are then considered as small extensions and
actually the whole house is gone. So this does look to me a little in the
same boat that what we've had here is applications for extensions the house
has gone and now we really are considering you know the the marginal
impact of this when actually we should be looking at the overall impact of it.
I'm also it feels like the applicant is playing a little bit potentially
possibly fast and loose with the committee and the members. And that leads
me to question the biodiversity net gain issue because they clearly levelled the
site at some point in the past which makes it very difficult to know exactly
what the preceding biodiversity on the site was and therefore what the net
biodiversity net gain should be. And I guess my question to the officers is, you
how do we enforce the issue of the biodiversity net gain, which you just described, given
that we don't have an adequate baseline from which to judge it? This is an applicant that
I have to say I have a bit of a question mark over. I won't be more strong than that for
obvious reasons, but given that, how do we actually enforce the conditions that are proposed
either in this application or subsequently in biodiversity net gain?
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:15:12
I'll go back to my answer earlier. Is the guidance to say extremely be
inappropriate for decision makers when determining a planning application for
development subject to biodiversity net gain, so we fuse an application on the ground?
Okay, correct question. I didn't suggest that. I asked a different question.
I asked how do we enforce the biodiversity net gain?
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:15:40
I completely have heard you that we can't turn it down solely on biodiversity net gain,
but I'm asking how we make sure that the legal requirement for biodiversity net gain is achieved
given that the baseline has effectively been removed.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:15:53
The baseline for biodiversity net gain is set by a certain date from when you go back.
which date is that I think that's going to the heart of my question yeah I would
have to cheque because if it was prior to the clearing of the site that's one
thing if it's you know three years after the site was levelled and it's just
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:16:16
rubble that's obviously different
Cllr David Moore - 2:16:27
you just bear with me one moment and of course you have policy CP 9 in this mix
that's relevant to part of biodiversity net gain so how does it address CP 9 as
well
just give me a few moments I'm just checking I'm happy to develop it and
there's no question well the officer again find insults which lets ask another
question I won't at this point in time I will let other members have their say
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:17:01
okay thank you can detect cancer Townsend thanks I absolutely echo the
concerns of the waters and cancer test on the BNG points I was going to move
on to something slightly different if that's appropriate on the parking I note
from the highways report that their assessment of no comment or no concerns
on the parking appears to be based on the wrong drawing so they I if I'm
reading this correctly and I apologise if I'm not they're using approved plan
dated November December 25 which indicates three parking bays however the
proposed plan indicates two parking bays,
which is the one that we can see up on the screen there.
My question, and I suspect, well, my question is,
how significant is that, and can we still act,
does your advice still stand,
as is that your professional advice,
that there are no parking or highways concerns
based on the fact that our experts, the highways team,
have formed their advice based on the wrong drawing?
Hugo Woodley - 2:18:20
Yes, so in essence, my report sets out that there was,
it is known that there's parking for two vehicles on site.
That's how this application's been assessed.
That's how it's been brought to committee.
The highways officer, basically,
with the previously approved scheme,
acknowledged that we would require,
although the county wide parking centre set out
that three spaces would be optimum.
We previously approved the original scheme knowing full well that there
would be a deficit of one parking space but that was deemed that wasn't deemed
refusible on those grounds alone. There's no parking restrictions on Vine Road.
There is ample off -street parking. It's not ideal but it's previously
previously been accepted that the one parking deficit was acceptable. So even
if there is two vehicles on site or if there's three it has been assessed as
there's been a parking deficit and it's been deemed acceptable regardless.
So the plan is incorrect then?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:19:17
The plans that the highways officer refers to in his report are not the correct plans.
And that's what he's basing his judgement on.
And with respect we're not looking at this alone are we?
Because we're looking at potentially a parking deficiency.
We're looking at issues with BNG and the appropriate baseline.
Yes, each of those taken alone are not sufficient to refuse planning permission, but there are numerous floors that I think needs to be
It's definitely a mix here. So before we answer the question about the car parking and just confirm that the
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:19:50
Statutory baseline date is January the 30th 2020
And could you just tell me you may not know this but on what date was the site cleared of all vegetation
I don't know that but it's essentially that that is a statutory date that's
taken say it's and that was essentially sat on that date to essentially try and
prevent developers from clearing sites ahead of time to secure a blank slate
when they submit their planning application so it was
definitely the bad diversity net gain provisions came in 2024 so it was it was
in a sort of four year provision so that you...
Sorry, is it four years or five years?
You said that it's 2020.
It was 2020, so the net gain came in in 2024,
so it was essentially allowing you to go back to,
but it's a set date in any event with how many years?
But it's a moving set date, it's a four year period.
No, it's not a moving set date, it's, that is the...
It's fixed, so in 20 years time, hypothetically,
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:21:00
it would still be looking at the biodiversity net gain over 2020.
Okay, interesting.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:21:07
In terms of the parking, what Hugo was explaining was that with granted permission,
that permission had provision for two car parking spaces and that was acknowledged at that time
that there was a shortfall of one space to meet the standards. However, at that time it was not
considered that would be sufficiently harmful to the refusal of the application.
This application also has two parking spaces, so it's the same provision.
And whilst the application has increased slightly in terms of size, it wouldn't increase the
standard required, so the level of parking deficiency would be the same.
It would still be one space deficient to meet the standards.
So on that basis when this development wouldn't increase the parking deficiency, it would remain as the same deficiency as has already been approved.
But we're looking at an increased number of rooms.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:22:04
Yes, but even with the increased number of rooms, the actual standard remains the same.
It's within the same bracket, even if you're going on the habitable rooms calculation as opposed to the bedrooms calculation.
Correct.
The outcome is the same.
Yeah.
Okay
Cllr Cole Caesar - 2:22:22
Councillor Cesar then Councillor Roberts and then councilman. Yeah. Thank you chairman
Apologies if I'm repeating anything
But it does say in the consultation response on the highways officer
That this is in a residential zone B and requires free on -site parking spaces
Not due to the BC PG policy document
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:22:41
That been answered already. Yes, I acknowledge that three three spaces are required
to meet the standards.
So when we dealt with the previous application,
it was acknowledged that only two spaces would be provided
and that was therefore there's a deficiency of one space
to meet that.
However, having regard as Hugo sets out the street
in terms of the level of off -street parking,
off -site parking that's available,
it wasn't considered that the deficiency of one space
would result in a highway safety
or highway inconvenience impact sufficient
to refuse planning permission.
So on that basis that we granted permission on the basis of having two spaces
This application is the same in that respect
It's still got two spaces and the number of spaces to meet the standard would still be three spaces. So it remains a
deficiency of one space so the the planning
There's a funding issue. We still want one space deficient and that's unchanged from what was already approved
Okay, so the BCPG policy is just advisory then?
It needs to be taken into account and make an assessment, but it doesn't necessarily
follow that if it doesn't meet the standard, it's that the standard of the application
is automatically refused.
What you have to look at then is whether or not that deficiency would result in a level
of harm that would result in sufficient reason to refuse planning permission.
So normally that would be where the lack of provision would cause or exacerbate existing
issues on the roadway or cause potential inconvenience to road users and things like that.
But in this case, given the nature of the road, it wasn't considered that one additional
space or the lack of that space would cause that level of harm such that this application
should be refused.
Hugo Woodley - 2:24:36
Just to double on that, the keyword in the parking guidance is its optimum
standards so it's not must be three spaces on site or nearby they
are the optimum standards.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:24:50
Councillor Roberts. Yeah I'm gonna return to BMG but slightly different angle here
which is not so much about the baseline but all the maps and diagrams they're
showing show the whole plot but a large part of the plot is taken up by this outbuilding
and that's not, there's no biodiversity gain from the outbuilding there but the diagrams
seem to be showing that there'd be applicants claiming that part of the site for towards
the net gain. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:25:28
So the baseline would go back to January 2020.
So you would take into account the overall development.
And then you'd have to look at this development
and what impacts it had on that baseline.
And then you would calculate the need for 10%.
The outbuilding is separate because development,
which is subject to permitted development,
isn't subject to biodiversity net gain.
So that wouldn't be required to comply with it.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:25:55
But they're using the land towards the net gain, but the land is occupied by the outbuilding.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:26:04
So again, they would have to demonstrate that whether on site or off site, they can comply
with the net gain requirements.
So that would mean if they can't comply with it on site, they would have to buy credits
to ensure that the net gain is maintained at 10 % so your position that
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:26:26
is that would get wrapped up in the plan that they'd be required to submit
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 2:26:38
Councillor Matthews on the BNG point am I missing something or should there be an
informative here that refers to the BNG requirement because I can't see anything
It's usually an informative.
You're correct, there definitely should be.
Hugo Woodley - 2:26:57
Unfortunately that would just be an oversight on my part.
It is on the system.
I clearly just did not add it to this report, unfortunately.
I apologise.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:27:12
Irrespective of the informative, it's not actually a condition put in by the council.
The informative is just to bring their attention to it.
So but it will be it will be put on export on all decision notices as part of our template when we're shooting decision notices
so
That that will appear on the decision
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 2:27:32
My other question is is about the air pump. I can't see on the plan where it is going to be located
So could you indicate where it's going to be in relation to the neighbouring properties? Of course, so I believe yes
so the
protrusion, so this bit at the rear, it's in the design and access statement they
Hugo Woodley - 2:27:50
state that it's going to be used for storage and that could include an air
pump, an air source heat pump. While it's not on the diagram I did feel it
necessary to include that condition so that we can't just approve anything
without first considering the impact on neighbouring amenity and noise levels
before that. But that's where it would be.
Councillor Hawke, you had your hand up.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:28:13
Would you mind putting up the sketch of the proposed, the proposal, what it will look
like?
In the front, which plan they...
Yeah, the proposed development, ideally from the front.
Yeah, that's that.
The front is the top left.
Okay, so this seems to be of quite significant material weight,
because the Stoke Pouges neighbourhood plan has a design code,
and the design code specifically shows examples of what they consider to be their local character,
and it provides a description of that.
Then, if you look at the new Buckinghamshire Local Plans design code,
it specifically states what character is, which is a distinct feature or special quality that defines a place's identity.
And it includes a visual attractiveness test as well, which is looking for coherent, well -composed,
human -scale buildings, strong detail when you're looking on the other side of the street,
and when you're looking up close.
So the two planning documents actually work well together, and then you bring in the south
Bucks townscape character study and that seems to add weight to the importance of
the character of this road. I'm curious to know because I haven't seen anything
in this report about the Stoke Pogue's design code and obviously we haven't
seen anything about the Buckinghamshire local plans design code, what the
officers think about this.
This seems to be, you know, we've heard about biodiversity,
we've heard about parking,
but this is a totally different angle.
Is there a specific part of the design code
you're referring to?
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:30:41
And the stock pages?
Yeah, the point is that if you read
the stock pages design code,
it explains what it character is,
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:30:50
and it expects new developments to fit to its character,
then the Buckinghamshire local plan provides more guidance
on what local character and visual attractiveness
actually mean.
And just to come in on that, so it's SP6,
you're referring to?
Yes, SP6.
In LB01, LB03.
That's right, and you can find it in appendix C
of the Stoke Poges design code.
I'm sorry, the Stoke Poges neighbourhood plan.
And then as an addendum, you're also saying
the omitted Bucks local plan design code which you're citing as well and your question.
Cllr David Moore - 2:31:25
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:31:26
There's a South Bucks townscape character study from 2017 which
mentions that this site is located within the suburban road character area
so while I appreciate that the new local plan has limited weight it seems that
these are layering on top of each other when it comes to character and I haven't
seen any serious discussion of that in the report?
No, I mean, that's completely understandable.
Hugo Woodley - 2:31:57
I do touch on it in paragraph 4 .411 about the design code,
but I think the problem with this application in particular
is if you can see on screen,
this is what we've already approved.
There is fundamentally no difference.
It looks different because of how the drawings are drawn,
but the scale is the same,
there's no different design changes.
Yes, they're shading but fundamentally from the street scene. There is no difference. So the character completely with you
there is
Not really any additional harm to the character that hasn't already been approved
Okay, just just to go to that as well in need in the report
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:32:34
It does it does refer to design code
it also refers to the townscape study as well and sets out and it's again also am sets out the and
the requirements of the timescapes study in paragraph 4 .13.
So that was, again, that was something that was considered
as part of the original application as well.
They considered the impacts on the character of the area
having regard to the timescapes study,
and it was considered that the extension,
which is subordinate extension to the side of the dwelling
would be acceptable and wouldn't be detrimental
to the character of the area.
So that is something that has been taken into account.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:33:14
I see that in 4 .13 that that's actually what I was reading from
But all it says is that these roads have
The style has eroded over time
it doesn't really say anything about
how
Certainly the state pages
Design code would apply
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:33:41
Is there a particular part of the design code that you're referring to in particular to Vine Road?
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:33:48
You don't need to refer to a particular line when it comes to design codes character study.
You take the design codes, what it's saying to you is the character, which is an amalgamation
of all of the different examples and descriptions that they're giving, and then you're connecting
it to the further guidance that the new Buckinghamshire design code provides around local character
and then you bring those together.
So it's not that I'm not trying to pick out a particular clause, there is a character
study that I'm not entirely sure has really been undertaken even though 4 .13 specifically
states that it is in a character area and the only thing that 4 .13 states is that the
the roads character has been eroded over time,
but it doesn't really go into any further detail than that.
So that's what I'm looking for from the offices about,
and just on the point about, yes, you approved it before,
but again, I would just question whether that character study
had really been done in that one.
And when the last application was approved,
it wouldn't have had probably when I don't know when it when it was 24 so it
was before the Stoke pogers does a neighbourhood plan was made and before
the Buckinghamshire local plan had any weight didn't exist so we're under
different very different circumstances to the last time that there was an
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:35:26
application approved so the principles in the design code essentially seek to
ensure that development is assessed in accordance with the townscape character
study and that's what that assessment is undertaken and in paragraph
413 it does set out what the townscape study says about this area and what
the main principles that should be followed. It's putting that aside you
know you may or may not disagree with the fact that the permission was
granted previously but what's important is is to acknowledge that the granting
about planning permission is a material planning consideration in making the decision on this
application. So even if you feel that it shouldn't have been granted, it's a material planning
consideration when you're dealing with this one because it could still be constructed
and that development could still be completed. So in taking that into account, it would be
very difficult to having regard to that they could build that to raise issues that have
already been approved and refuse permission on grounds that have already been dealt with
in the previous application. So essentially the difference is really what we're considering
here are the differences between what's been approved and about what we've got as part
of this application. And that is primarily the single -storey element protrusion that
sticks out the back and the additional fenestration at the additional windows that have been put
on. And the decision is whether that would render the development unacceptable in terms
of the impact on the couch of the area or neighbour and amenity, for example.
Councillor Waters.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:37:21
I think what would be really useful at this point is to bring up the pictures with showing
us exactly what is different because what we've been discussing is the complication
which is everything else can be built, they could go and build it and then they could
come back and just ask for this separately and we would have to consider it if we think
of it in that way.
I know we're making decisions on the whole, but it's quite important that we're actually
looking at what are these elements.
So when we're looking at character, none of these actually would come into any character
assessment because they're not on the front of the building, they're not on the street
scene.
The other things we've discussed in terms of impact to neighbours and other things may
important but not the one thing isn't is the character because the character yes
we are considering but that already has permission and that will can be built
whatever so it's it's a difficulty so we have to keep ourselves thinking saying
with that permission in place what actually are they going to amend here
and that's that's key thing so I just visually that's important to look at and
keep our minds on I think if we get as we make a decision
statements
Cllr David Moore - 2:38:44
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:38:50
council towns end thanks further question relating to Councillor Roberts
previous point on the fact that the outbuilding isn't in the drawings our
senior ecology officer's report is based on a review of the proposed, the existing
and proposed habitat maps, neither of which, the ones that are on the planning
portal, neither of which show the outbuilding. And it's on the basis of those drawings
that she is calculating the total net loss at minus 10 .44%.
So I get the sort of general message that we're sorting out BNG further down
the line but I think it's really important that that number is correct
because otherwise who knows what we're working towards if we're saying at this
point in time your total net loss is minus ten point four four percent that's
not factoring into account doesn't taking into account the outbuilding in
the garden because that is not shown in the documents that the ecology officer
has reviewed so it's another it's another document fail isn't it but
Perhaps you can tell me why that's not significant.
I don't know.
To me, that seems materially important.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:40:08
It goes back to what I said earlier in terms of,
whilst these technologies that the information regarding
that gain isn't up to scratch, that would be something
that they would still have to comply with subsequent
to the application.
So what are they complying with?
Well, they would have to
If they don't know what the number is that they're working
towards because it's not been calculated on the right drawings. How does anybody know what the correct number is?
I think if I could just step in.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:40:35
So I think the ecologist is saying they're not satisfied yet, but when
they submit their biodiversity plan for review by the officers, ecologists, they will then have to be
content with the information provided in order to approve it.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:40:55
But will that plan be on the basis that their current loss is minus 10 .44 %?
They'll have to have to recalculate it because that doesn't say that
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:41:00
the ecologist will have to be content that the information they're being provided
is accurate in order to assess the correct biodiversity
loss. And so will they then be provided with documents that show the output
in order to date? Right. In order for them to approve it,
they will have to have the correct information in front of them.
And that's all she's highlighting, or he is highlighting in the report,
that at the moment they don't have that information.
But they also don't know that outbuilding exists because it's not on the drawings
that they have been seen, that they've been shown.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:41:33
Will they be going to do a site visit?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:41:35
I think we established that the outbuilding is permitted development.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:41:39
But it's still relevant.
But it impacts the communities.
The calculation.
Yeah.
And it's not on the drawings.
So how will the ecology officer know that it exists in order to take it into account
in her calculations?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:41:53
I'll just have to defer to officers on what is submitted to the ecologist but she's already
highlighted that she has a question with this number. She will be tasked with approving,
he or she will be, they will be tasked with approving the BNG gain plan and they're professionals
and they'll be assured that what they have in front of them allows them to make that
assessment and conclusion.
Cllr David Moore - 2:42:18
So is the ecology officers holding objections still outstanding and are they going to take that out learning into consideration?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:42:24
Please can the app can indicate how they will secure BNG based on the total net loss
So that that's what they'll have to establish when they submit the details
Cllr David Moore - 2:42:36
So the objection remains outstanding
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:42:40
For the ecology officers. Yes
But they don't know the full extent of what they're objecting to is my point.
Yeah. Am I belking up the wrong tree here? I think you made a very good point.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:42:49
Who's going to make sure that they're presented with drawings that show the outbuilding?
Cllr David Moore - 2:42:55
I share that. Councillor Tett.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:42:57
Yeah I've just got to echo exactly those points. I mean I'm very concerned about this
by the person that came, which I completely understand is not...
calm down council behind you put your hands up calmly instead of having a
little a hissy fit it's the first time I saw your hand up it said just don't
let's let's behave our adults okay put your hand up and then you wait
council take just so we're all clear I think it's irrelevant to all of us as
members here it's not a planning consideration we can't turn it down
because of biodiversity net gain concerns but the fact that there are
concerns around the baseline and the way in which you calculated when the applicant comes to present
their BNG plan. Yep, the officers could in theory reject that plan at which point
the development could not go ahead. Yeah, can I just confirm that that has to be done
prior to commencement on site because given the history of this and the way in
which various applications have come in the entire site's been demolished
despite it being called an extension and so on there has to be an element of
concern around how this has been carried out so I'm just want to make sure that
we understand fully as committee members if this comes forward and there is still
uncertainty of the BNG, our ecology officer can effectively block the
commencement of development. Yes or no?
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:44:41
The commencement of development has already started because it's partly built but
yes they wouldn't have permission if they don't comply with the net gain.
So they essentially wouldn't have permission.
So does that therefore fall under the council's enforcement powers?
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:44:58
Yeah.
Even though it's not a planning issue, it would fall under the council's planning enforcement regime, correct?
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:45:08
It is a planning issue, but we're saying that the new regime for BNG allows for this mandatory condition.
And once that condition is complied with then the mid then it's taken
That the MIDI the requirement from BNG mitigation is met
and so and so but but if
The the enforcement regime is that it is a mandatory condition
Within the consent and if it's not complied with then the development cannot proceed
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:45:40
Let me just push this one bit further because I'm still very unclear
If the application is approved,
hypothetically today,
the BNG plan still is required.
Were that not to be approved by our ecology officer,
but given that the site has already been cleared,
that development has already started,
at what point does actually the council then step in?
Because this applicant seems to have shown some disregard,
one could hypothesise,
towards the council's planning approach and therefore he could actually go ahead
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:46:25
and just build this and say, bother you, you know, council. There is an
element of academic really, questions are hypothetical, but the
government have actually changed their provisions so future applications of
this nature wouldn't require biodiversity net gain.
So going forward, they won't be required.
Just this one's been caught because it's
of the date that it was submitted.
So in theory, if the applicant wanted to provide it,
they could submit a new application in the future.
And it wouldn't be required under the current regulation.
So it's kind of,
Overall, I appreciate that it's an issue that my people are really concerned with, but going
forward the direction of travel is for developments of this scale.
Not tonight, no, but in the future they won't be required to provide it.
I think essentially because the government decided that the biodiversity net gain was
too onerous for smaller smaller schemes such as this thank you
councillor said council hide
Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:47:38
if the building had been built in 2024 and then put in for a planning
application to modify to it put the extension in and a couple of windows in
the back is that likely to be accepted without the need for this first would it
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:48:07
being accepted yeah I mean it would have been because if it was just an extension
to an existing dwelling it wouldn't have required BNG and it wouldn't and so it
would have just been an assessment of whether the additional elements the
addition windows etc would have been acceptable.
Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:48:25
So most of the problem we've got is the fact that they've done everything
retrospectively, knocked the place down before they'd even got planning
permission to, because from looking at the planning applications they knocked
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:48:38
it down probably about six years ago? I don't think it was that long ago but it
was it was quite a few years ago. So what happened is you got
permission
for
extensions to the property and
Then not the whole building down and therefore they had to regularise that so so a subsequent application came in
To essentially build the house again with the extensions that they had that the previous have been granted
And this application is a follow -on from that obviously there was in there in the intervening period there was a
went too far in terms of the level of bulk especially at roof level that that
was refused permission and then we've got this application which is
essentially what they've got permission for with the added element at the rear
Cllr Matthew Hind - 2:49:36
and the windows in the side. I know we're going to talk about visits site visit
review are we gonna that's still on the agenda to as a follow a view of all the
people who went and visited the site is that still going to be part of the
agenda for today this is on the debate yeah subsequent I just wanted to do to
say that if to those of us who went yesterday and saw what the back of the
of the property with the the outhouse call it what you like but it's yeah
that one there.
You sensed that actually there was gonna be
precious little left in the way of garden
by the time the extension was added.
And I'm wondering how much the council
can actually control that.
I mean if the guy paved the back,
whole back of the garden,
would there be anything that we could do about that?
Question.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:50:35
There is permitted development for hard standing. There are restrictions on that, particularly
to the front of dwellings to require it to be above a certain size. It needs to provide
provision for water runoff or porous surface, but to the rear of dwellings there isn't.
Artificial grass in the back?
and correct. Yeah. Thank you.
Counsellor. Hi, Councillor.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 2:51:07
I just want to make a clarification again on this character point,
just one, one last time. My colleague, um,
said that we're just focusing on the extension round the back and that sort of
thing. However, um, the application, um,
report specifically says that this is an alternative scheme to the approval that was previously had and I totally take your point that it is a
large planning weight that we have to take into account
That there was a previous approval
but we also have to take into account that between the last time this was approved and now and
there has been a neighbourhood plan and there's been a
a Buckinghamshire local plan and since we're actually judging the entire building, not
just the little windows and the extension, that we have to take those weights into account
together, not just say we've done it previously, therefore those other weights don't count.
I'm feeling like I'm not quite clear on where the officers stand on that.
Mr Ben Robinson - 2:52:22
You're broadly correct in that you're assessing this application, but you have to have regard
to any material planning considerations.
The previous permission, it's not just the decision to grant permission isn't just material
planning consideration, it's also the fallback position of being able to carry out the works.
So yes, if the permission had been granted years ago and subsequently, and then it subsequently
expired and then the legislation and the policy had changed in the meantime, that would be
in material changing circumstances and that would give you potential different reasons
to take issue with it.
But in this case, you're not just looking at that, you're also looking at the fact that
it's a fallback position.
This development could be carried out without a need for further permission. So that that needs to be taken into account. See
That's why that's why mainly you're concentrating on the differences because given that they can already build
But the majority of what of what's in front of us
You're then looking at whether or not the addition of the rear element and the windows would
alter the development to the point where it would
have additional impacts on the character in appearance the area or neighbours or
Whatever other issues and whether that would be amounts of sufficient reason to refuse permission
Thank You councillor hog before we move to the debate and any further questions
Cllr David Moore - 2:53:55
We've kind of had a really good thorough session there
I think we'll move to the debate then of course we can speak about the site visit
Fortunately I had a puncture on the way, so I couldn't go to that time, but it's a site
I do know.
I've been past it many times, seen photography, and I know the history of this site, and whilst
keeping an open mind, it is disappointing at the time, especially to see the applicant
not here today, to answer our questions and to make his case considering the huge context
and history that the site has had.
Obviously, we've asked some very important questions about BNG, the outbuilding, the
parking spaces, the discrepancy there, which Councillor Townsend very pertinently highlighted.
You know, there's a lot of points there, and I do remain concerned about this application.
But I will listen to members.
Let's get this debate going.
Does anyone like to start?
Councillor Waters.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:54:51
Thank you, Jan.
I first of all would like to say to how sorry I feel actually for the lady who is the neighbour
of this, who has put up to this for such a long period of time and the stress that that
must have caused her.
What we have to look at is where we are today and lots of things have happened before we've
actually got to look at this application including a permission that has been given and what
actually can be built out as the fallback position. It's not ignoring it, but it's just
saying that's why I'm saying that can happen and the character of the street would be as
it was if they didn't add the other elements they're looking for here. So it's then looking
at what are the things which concern. Some of the things that are a shame with this is
we've got again a report where the highways team haven't done a proper job because they've
in something talking about three spaces when actually they should have been qualifying
six three spaces is what the optimum is but actually two as was granted before is acceptable
they should be making that statement it should not necessarily be the officer who's doing
that they should be doing that on their assessment it hasn't happened we haven't had the document
there again on the new local plan so again we've got a deficit there this isn't great
and all of the discussions here we're having are to do with actually reports which are
not absolutely up to scratch and that's not great.
But as it is, that's why we've taken so long going through things.
I think on terms of the biodiversity question, it is a big concern for us, I think, that
which is this massive outbuilding that's at the bottom of the garden, there are these
little fluffy trees showing on the map which is supposedly there which are not
there anymore and will never be there because there's a building where they
would be. So I would like to see, I'm not quite sure whether it's an informative
to the officer who will be dealing with this, to actually say the committee were
really concerned about the site, that there's a whole section of it which will
have no biodiversity on it, this needs to be taken into account and they need to be
drawn to. The plans that have been put forward so far do not show it, though enforcement
has already agreed it exists and will remain and has permission to be there. So it's not
going to change, so that's what they need to do. We need some kind of informative, and
I'm sure you'll come up with some words on that, and I think there's a few nods on that
if we're going to go down that route, because it needs to get to the person who's going
to do the assessment. And obviously the applicant needs to know that we're not happy with that,
and obviously the other point you've made,
I think some clarification in terms of what the base year is
but we actually don't understand in the base year
what was actually there in the base year
but we're hoping a little bit more than what's there now
and I'm not sure how that comes up.
We're not an expert in that so we can't deal with it.
The parking deficiency, again,
parking deficiencies are an issue
and I get the officer's point
that actually it's been given permission
with the deficit before with the changes on this
an extra room space etc. It wouldn't make any difference, it would still be three, but there's
still a deficiency. So there's not a lot of room within that for us to do anything. I think in terms
of the area I'm not particularly happy with is that further extension on the back, but again within
And what we can deal with in terms of planning, where it's just really does it cover the 60
degree angle?
It's not going to impact the neighbour in that way.
But it does significantly reduce the garden space.
And I think, again, I know in the old Tilton area, which I was part of, we used to have
the 15 metre garden rule.
I know South Bucks never had that.
So it's always difficult when they say, well, it's reasonable for the size of the house.
it's what's reasonable, who knows.
I think it's starting to get significantly changing
what is acceptable within that area
if you're looking at the other gardens which are there.
So that gives me some concern.
I don't think on the other elements which are additional
that we have a lot to go on and it's likely
that it would be supporting a permission
but with all these elements properly dealt with and that's my my view thank
you council what's a very important good points there I share
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:59:41
council Roberts yeah I support a lot of those comments well all of those
comments in fact actually I'm stealing the points that I was going to make
actually. So on the on the BNG issue I really think we need to convey our the
debate that we've had and the points that we've raised to the Ecology
Officer and make sure that they have the right documentation to consider
this. I went on the site visit and going down the street when we approached the
site I feel very sorry for the neighbours who have gone through the
circumstances of the what's happened on this site. It's frankly an eyesore at the
moment and they've been really put through the mill of all this development
going on next to them, which has not followed what we would consider to be the normal practise
with applications.
So that is really unfortunate.
I think the best result for everybody would be to resolve this in a way that comes up
with a good plan, taking into account what has already been permissioned.
We have very limited scope it seems to me as to what we can consider today, which are
these changes that are shown and when we look at that there's very little in that that we've
got scoped for as grounds for refusal.
So that's the position that I'm at and I think we don't have any option today other than
to approve the recommendation.
Any other members?
Councillor Tett.
Yeah, thank you, Chairman.
I empathise with my two previous colleagues.
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:01:49
I have to be frank, I'm very uncomfortable with this.
And I have two previous examples,
as I've already mentioned, in my own village,
where applications for extensions have gone in,
been approved, and actually the entire property
has then been demolished.
and we sort of deal with officers saying well not much we can do about that just
got to prove it. This feels very similar to me where the applicants played fast
and loose it's notable they have not turned up to this meeting even though
it's very significant and virtually every other applicant has turned up to
set their case out and has answered our questions he or she has not in this case.
You know there is history here as I understand it although there is existing
permission for much of the building and the extensions are the additions rather
as shown in yellow on that we do have to consider the fact that we're granting
permission for the whole development so we're not just granting permission for
the additional bits at this meeting we're granting permission as I
understand it for the totality yeah and that goes the heart of the issue of
character and the fit with the road and the area yeah so that's my understanding
I certainly echo the comment about the BNG and I do think the officer needs to
be thoroughly briefed, thoroughly briefed, more than a footnote on an
application or a permission about the nature of this site and I think it may
be possible to come across this before where you can go back on previous
versions of something like Google Maps where you can actually look back
historically to what was on the site for example in 2020 and use that as your
baseline rather than the sort of desert that now exists on the site so I'm I'm
not as comfortable as others are with approving this frankly I'm very
uncomfortable with the way the applicant's acted I'm not convinced this
is in character with the road in the area as it's proposed in totality and
I'm very concerned about the building at the back and its impact on the overall
size of the garden and indeed on the bio net diversity but I completely
understand that is not a planning consideration that can be substantiated
but I have to just put that out there that I'm very uncomfortable with this
Cllr David Moore - 3:04:16
Thank You councillor Tett. Councillor Hogg.
Cllr Thomas Hogg - 3:04:18
I think I would just echo what Councillor Tett said that we are judging the entirety
of this and if you think about the fact that there was a previous permission provided and
they can just build that if they want to, that doesn't change the fact that we're not
just focusing on windows here or there, we are focusing on the totality of what they're
asking for and there have been material planning policies put in place since
then which make it very clear that this building is not in character with the
local area. So I also have a lot of other concerns about this but in terms
of material planning policy that is the one that you know we can't stop on
biodiversity net gain and the parking places we've talked about as well this
one has more weight to it even though on the other side there was permission
Cllr David Moore - 3:05:29
which also carries weight thank you councillor Hulk any other points for
members any other proposals beyond a councillor was yours a proposal I was
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:05:42
I would propose to accept the recommendation.
Are there any other proposals to that?
Councillor Tuck?
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:05:49
I just wonder whether we could have a very short adjournment
in private to discuss this,
particularly around the issue of the design.
I just feel we need to have a slightly
more private conversation about this.
I would not advise that.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:06:07
I think it's a public meeting.
We need to discuss everything.
We have adjourned before we have a journey. Yeah, we have adjourned before to discuss reasons for refusal
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:06:19
I'd like to suggest we have an adjournment to discuss potential reasons for refusal
Cllr David Moore - 3:06:23
That style goes to a vote all in favour of an adjournment
So I go ahead
Encourage the
Committee to
discuss these
well I think we've got we've got the informative I think but ultimately if
members are in favour of a journey to go through those details we've just
discussed then that heart that will have to go to a vote so all in favour of an
adjournment of council text motion
all those against
and abstentions
That's carried for an adjournment

6 PL/25/6386/FA - 61 Vine Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4DW

This meeting is adjourned
Now we adjourned because there was a tabled consideration of a refusal and we obviously discussed
Cllr David Moore - 3:07:28
The extent of that in terms of it does it reach that threshold policy wise materially?
Although we had some really strong
concerns about a number of
areas of this application.
However, we're obviously now returning to this meeting
to explore possibilities of informatives and conditions.
Obviously, we have Councillor Roberts' existing proposal,
but perhaps we want to look at those mitigations
we discussed specifically around biodiversity net gain
and the informatives that Councillor Waters alluded to.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:08:05
Yes, thank you.
I previously read to you an informative
which referred to the fact that this application
is subject to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country
Planning Act to provide mandatory biodiversity gain.
The applicant has advised that a revised small site metric
will be required which accurately reflects all built forms
of the application site.
That would be the informative but then we would include a condition to say
No development of the replacement dwelling shall be commenced until the applicant has complied with the mandatory condition for biodiversity net gain
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:08:47
Council cheque
Should they not read recommenced since some development has already occurred have they started the replacement dwelling?
I was under the impression they had
Not they had just cleared
Mr Ben Robinson - 3:09:01
No, if you've got the, so they've carried out some of the works, so they've started
the works but they haven't got to the point where the elements that are subjects of this
permission have been built yet.
So they haven't built the patrician, for example, and they haven't got up to first floor levels,
so the windows that have been proposed.
Well then could officers suggest some, instead of replacement dwelling, I'm not sure which
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:09:28
would be more accurate to...
I'm not considering the application as a whole again.
I'm just trying to separate the additions from what is in front of us,
which is the full application as I understand it.
And some of that application has been commenced.
Yeah, that's correct.
Mr Ben Robinson - 3:09:44
Say, what I suppose what you'd have to do is phrase it
such that prior to the commencement of the works.
Because essentially the works that they've carried out are subject to the previous planning
permission, so in effect that could still be the permission that they've got, that they're
commencing.
So if they didn't get permission for this, they could continue with the development as
approved.
And this is a separate permission for a different development, which includes the protrusion
and the windows. So essentially they haven't yet commenced this permission.
They would be commenced at some point they would have to decide whether they
commence because they'd have two permissions side by side and they would have to
decide which permission they were going to.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:10:41
So why don't we phrase it in terms of the power we're referring to the protrusion, the extension?
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:10:47
Yeah. Could we make it that it's before
commencement of any of the development that's not included in planning
and permission and whatever,
then that would be censored.
Any work's not included in, yeah, that works.
We go there.
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:10:57
Okay, thank you.
So we would include.
We would have the informative,
which draws everyone's attention to the fact
that it's subject to the mandatory condition,
and then we would add an additional condition to say,
no development comprising this the development described in this application
shall be commenced and until the applicant has complied with the
mandatory condition for biodiversity net gain.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:11:33
And does that include the point about the drawings I mean a recalculation of
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 3:11:39
the...
So that's can that's an I put that detail in the informative.
In the informative okay.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:11:45
Councillor Roberts are you content for those to be added to your proposal? Yes I'm content
with those. I wonder whether separately from the this discussion whether the
chair might convey our views to the Ecology Officer. I'll be content with
Cllr David Moore - 3:12:03
that. Any other members want to add to those reasons if not we'll
summarise and or summarise there's also needs to be a seconder I'm happy to
second it Thank You council town so are there any other proposals the contrary
or any other suggestions okay thank you that was a motion to to accept the
officer recommendation subject to an additional informative that alerts the
an applicant of the necessity to comply with the mandatory
condition and then that mandatory condition will require
them to submit a revised small site metric which will
accurately reflect all built forms of the application site.
And then an added condition to state that no development
of the development described in this plan,
no development, sorry, how did we,
no development that is not part of the previous application.
So in other words, the state of that and the negative.
But yeah.
No, it would be no development shall take place,
which didn't, as part of this permission,
which have not already been approved
under planning permission reference until.
Until the applicant has complied with the mandatory condition for biodiversity net gain
And the chairman's
Sorry, yeah
On that basis then that is the proposal in front of us and we now go to a vote
All in favour of the proposal before us
All against? Any against? And I abstain as chairman.
That passes. That's carried.

7 PL/26/02104/VRC - 59 Town Close, Beaconsfield, HP9 1LF

I'll take my leave there. Oh yes, you have to go at 8. Thank you, Councillor
Roberts. Thank you. Thank you, speakers. Thank you, members. Thank you, officers.
And now we move to the final... Chairman, do we have a five minute break?
Yes, of course. Absolutely. Come back in five minutes.

7 PL/26/02104/VRC - 59 Town Close, Beaconsfield, HP9 1LF

Thank you everyone. We now move to our final application of the day.
This is agenda item 7 PL slash 26 that's 02104 that's variation edition.
Cllr David Moore - 3:14:47
59 town closed, Beckinsale HP 91 LF. I'm going to hand over to Ben Robinson who will introduce this item.
Mr Ben Robinson - 3:14:52
Thank you chair. Hopefully this one will be slightly more straightforward.
So the application is for the variation of condition four.
It's the approved plans condition attached to planning
permission PL 25 forward slash 4751 FA for a part single
part two storey side rear extension installation of the first
floor flank window and reciting of existing solar panels and
roof lights.
And this is to allow for the amendment of the submitted and
approved drawings to reflect various fenestration
alterations.
Just by way of an update, as with the previous two items, the new draught local plan, which
is just passed through its Regulation 19 consultation, is not referenced in the report.
The officer's view that the policies within that would carry limited weight and wouldn't
change the outcome of this application in terms of the overall assessment.
So just turning to the plans, we've got the site plan and then we've got a block plan.
Members may remember the site from previous times it came to Planning Committee.
It did come to Planning Committee solely because the applicant is a member of the Council and
therefore the constitution requires it to.
but you'll have seen these very similar plans before when it came to committee previously.
I do have a plan showing the various differences. So this is the front elevation. Essentially,
you've got just here a door, where previously there was a window, and that's just basically
to move the door, which was previously in the side of this front element here. As you
can see there that the door has now been shown to be bricked up and that's what it previously
looked like under the previous permission. Also, there's an addition of a window here.
Previously you just had one window, now you've got two windows. Again, as previously the
window would be conditioned to be optical glazed, so it wouldn't result in any unacceptable
overlooking the neighbours. The approved French doors have a minor change that has been slightly
reduced in size. Other than that, it is essentially the same as what was previously approved.
These are just some photos of the application site and views from surrounding developments.
So that is the elevation with the windows in it. That is all the slides I have got to
Cllr David Moore - 3:17:41
show you on this one. Thank you Chairman. Thanks Ben. We have no speakers on this
application so we go straight to technical questions to the officers and
members have any questions on this application?
Take that as no questions. And now we move to the debate. Any comments at all?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:18:02
Councillor Waters and Councillor Matthews. I don't see anything significant in planning
in terms that I think we need to debate and I would be quite happy to propose that we
take the recommendation the officers have made as my proposal.
Okay, well, that's a live proposal.
Any other proposals or comments?
If not, we'll move to a vote.
All in favour of the proposal as it stands.
All those against?
Those against and I abstain as chairman
Okay, the motion passes
Thank you

8 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA PL/26/02308/FA - Pioneer Secondary Academy, Hollybush Hill, Stoke Poges,Buckinghamshire, SL2 4QB

Cllr David Moore - 3:18:41
We now move to the final item of the agenda, which is date of next meeting

9 Date of next meeting

We're hosting two meetings in October because of the scheme of delegation as I mentioned the government's made it very difficult for us
So we have to go through all the call -ins
It's only fair to to the residents of those we've could either ourselves or other people have called in
To make sure they are determined under planning committee. So thank you for your patience
Obviously with site visits we usually do it the day before so if you are available, we'd love to have you there
Webcast Finished - 3:19:16
Hopefully I don't get a puncture again. So yes, so thank you very much for your time and see you at the next meeting
this meeting