West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 September 2026, 6:30pm

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Mr Leslie Ashton

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

4 25/05307/FUL - Ladys Mile, Kingshill Road, High Wycombe HP13 5BB

Share this agenda point

Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Sanila Hussain
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Chris Chilton
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Steven Broadbent
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Steven Broadbent
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Mr Matthew McKane
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Mohammed Ayub
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Maz Hussain
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Maz Hussain
Ms. Katherine Stubbs
Cllr Maz Hussain
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

5 25/06402/OUT - OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road, Longwick

Share this agenda point

25.06402 report and apps

Mrs Emma Crotty
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mrs Emma Crotty
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mrs Emma Crotty
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Mrs Emma Crotty
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mrs Emma Crotty
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mrs Emma Crotty
Ms. Katherine Stubbs
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Katherine Stubbs
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Ms. Katherine Stubbs
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mrs Emma Crotty
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Katherine Stubbs
Mrs Emma Crotty
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Clive Harriss
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Clive Harriss
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Trevor Faulkner
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

5 25/06402/OUT - OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road, Longwick

Share this agenda point

25.06402 report and apps

6 PL/25/3044/FA - Grymsdyke Farm, Main Road, Lacey Green HP27 0RB

Share this agenda point

Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Clive Harriss
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Clive Harriss
Mr Ray Martin
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

7 PL/25/4361/FA - The Hedgerow, Parkwood, Walters Ash HP14 4XQ

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Ms. Jenny Ion
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Mr Leslie Ashton
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Public Speaker
Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja
Cllr Michael West
Cllr Clive Harriss
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ms. Jenny Ion

8 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

9 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:00

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

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:14

I am Councillor Sarfraz -Rajah and I'm the chairman of this meeting.

I have a couple of housekeeping items.

For information, this meeting is being webcast and by entering this 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 you to sit somewhere where you will not be filmed.

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

Please follow me and we will congregate outside over the bridge to the left of the council building.

Item 1 is apologies for absence.

1 Apologies for Absence

received apologies from Councillors Addo,

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:01:01

Allyn and Turner.

Thank you.

2 Declarations of Interest

Agenda item two, are there any declarations of interest?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:10

Sorry, can't hear you.

Council, oh man, apologies.

Thank you.

Are there any declarations of interest?

No.

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

Agenda item three minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 26 2026.

If everybody is happy with the minutes I will sign them.

Agreed thank you.

4 25/05307/FUL - Ladys Mile, Kingshill Road, High Wycombe HP13 5BB

We move on to the applications agenda item four application number 25 0 5 3 0 7 dash

FUL ladies mile Kings Hill Road Highway and Bucks.

Before this item comes up, I will be swapping with my deputy chairman because I was one

of the Councillors originally who's called this into the committee.

So Councillor Massimo -Hassan, would you like to take over from there?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:08

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:02:11

I hand over to McKean to start.

Thank you, Chair.

Sanila Hussain - 0:02:56

So the application is part retrospective plan of mission for the creation of hard standing,

bonding, and the change of use of agricultural land to gypsum travel caravans site comprising

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:03:04

four pitches, accommodating four static caravans and four touring caravans for residential

The application was called in by three members to discuss the Greenbelt and National Landscape

Implications.

Officer's recommendation is for approval.

The site forms part of a wider – next slide, please.

The application site forms part of the wider Lady's Miles property on the eastern side

of King's Hill Road.

The wider holding comprises a detached dwelling known as Lady's Mile, an agricultural barn,

associated land and further detached property

and there's a commercial site just behind

where the development is located.

The application site itself comprises

an enclosed parcel of land

that was formerly agricultural use

and is currently occupied by the hard standing

and earth ponding which is currently in situ.

The site lies just outside the defined settlement boundary

of Fire Wickham and is located within the Greenbelt

and National Landscape.

This site is also located in flood zone one

and there is the four ashes conservation area

which lies opposite side of Kings Hill Road

to the west of the site across the road.

Next slide please.

So I'm just gonna take you through the photos of the site.

It leads us, the photo shows the views

towards the agricultural building

and access first road leading up to where the pictures

are to be located and the photos will continue to lead us

within into the site showing the extent of hard standing

and views towards the bunding

and finally over the bunding into the fields beyond.

So next slide please.

Next slide please.

So this is located within the site,

just looking back towards the agricultural building.

Next slide please.

This shows the western corner of the site and the extent

of hard standing.

Next slide please.

There's a photo north towards the bunding and we can see

the height there.

Next slide please.

This shows the extent of the bunding which is situated

in the centre of the hard standing looking north

eastwards.

Next slide please.

Okay, and we're now looking at the bunding again to the north western part of the site.

And this is the top of the bunding looking out to the fields beyond.

As the application site is in the green belt, this is the in principle consideration.

and when considering the change of use of the land

and whether or not it's inappropriate development.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out

that criteria for assessment and we need to consider

whether the site is grey belt land.

Grey belt land is defined as green belt comprising

previously developed land and or any other land in either case

which does not strongly contribute to any

of the purposes A, B or D.

Those purposes include A cheque the unrestricted sprawl

of large built up areas, B, prevent neighbouring towns

merging into one another, and D, preserving setting

and special character of historic towns.

Okay, all right.

In terms of A, whilst it performs that function

to some extent, the contribution is only moderate

because the site is contained by existing development,

roads, vegetation, and boundaries.

Whereas in terms of purpose B and D,

it does not perform to any notable extent.

Finally, the policy requires an evidence unmet need

and a sustainable location.

The council has a significant unmet need

for gypsum travel pitches and the site is located adjacent

to High Wycombe with access to services and facilities.

Therefore, concluding that the proposal satisfies policy GB7G

of the MPPF and is not inappropriate development

in Greenbark terms.

In terms of the engineering development, the bonding

and the hard standing is considered to comply

with the MPPF GB7FI.

And due to the extent of the earth bond

and the hard standing is not considered

to significantly conflict with purposes

of concluding land within the Greenbelt.

And so overall the proposal complies

with Greenbelt policy is not considered

to be inappropriate development in this location.

And in terms of the impact on the character and the AMMB

As we saw from the photos, it's a very contained site.

It's located next to the road, backs onto commercial,

and is hugged by the agricultural building.

So it's very enclosed.

And so the impacts will be limited.

We've consulted with our specialists in terms of highways

and where they've raised no objections

and has impacts on level of traffic and access.

Also, there's no heritage impacts.

It's quite a contained site and it's limited in scale

and the separation distances from Conservation Area

mean the proposal will preserve the character

and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The nearest sensitive residence would be Ladies Mile

due to the size and scale of the development

and the separation distances is not considered to be any

significant impacts there.

In terms of flooding and drainage,

surfacing appears to be permeable but I've asked

for conditions to require drainage details to ensure

there's no increased flooding risk elsewhere.

In terms of ecology and green infrastructure,

council or councils ecologists have considered the proposal

and they've recommended conditions because there's

no significant impacts there also.

And in terms of the planning balance, there is a significant unmet need in terms of gypsum

travel sites, which carries substantial weight in favour of the proposal, whilst there would

be localised impacts in terms of impacts on the national landscape, and therefore the

benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the harms.

Thank you.

We have a few speakers.

We have five speakers.

I will start with the two local ward Councillors.

I will start with Councillor.

Thank you, Chairman.

I would like to speak.

Sorry?

I am just going to speak as a committee member, not as a member.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'll go to Councillor Chris Chiltern.

Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:10:08

Okay, thank you, Chairman.

I'm not opposed to development in my own backyard.

I supported the development of Terriers Farm,

which will provide 370 homes,

less than 100 metres from my own house.

I also fully recognise that Buckinghamshire

has fallen woefully short in providing

sufficient gypsy and traveller sites.

I would happily work with all interested parties

to identify suitable sites within the Terriers and Amersham Hill Ward that I represent. My

objection to this proposal is simply that it is the wrong place on agricultural green

belt land within the Chilterns National landscape and I have three reasons. First, the Planning

Teams Grey Belt Assessment. Appendix D in front of you councillors contains the Council's

own 2026 green belt assessment prepared by EA CoM. It assesses plots HWD 007 as being

green belt making a strong contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of

High Wycombe and concludes it is not grey belt. The officer reaches a different

conclusion for the smaller 2 ,000 square metre caravan site assessing its

contribution is only moderate to preventing sprawl and hence concludes

that EA Comm were wrong and that this parcel of land is grey belt. On Monday's

site visit I asked why and I was told that the caravan site is small

discreetly tucked away and well contained by the bund. The site protection afforded by

tree lines and Kingshill Road is acknowledged in the EA comm report so the only additional protection

comes from the four metre high bund which separates the hard standing from the green fields.

Climbing the bund reveals the field in all its glory. Members therefore need to decide whether

containment created by the development itself, a four metre high bund, is sufficient reason to

depart from the council's own specialist assessment that this land is green belt

and not grey belt. Secondly the Chiltern National Landscape. The report

acknowledges that caravans, vehicles and hard standing are being introduced into

an agricultural field but relies heavily on the fact that they are screened. But

being hidden behind a large bond is not the same as avoiding landscape harm

particularly when the bond itself is part of the development. There's an

refused permission to build an access road and gate at Ladies Mile 50 metres

away because that would create a permanent and adverse change to the

landscape character of the Chilterns. Members should consider whether this

considerably greater physical change to 2 ,000 square metres of agricultural land

can reasonably regarded as acceptable simply because it is

screened particularly when a much more modest access gate was denied in 2023.

hiding permanent damage to the Chiltern National Landscape

behind a large bund does not make the damage disappear.

And thirdly, our emerging local plan. We have just spent

months considering Reg 19. It identifies substantial travel

in need and proposes numerous sites, but surprisingly, Ladies

Mile is not one of those sites. Reg 19 does not determine

this application, but I believe that the

Councillor Chris you're running out your three minutes.

One more minute. It also provides an interesting comparison with other potential sites.

Chair with respect, you have to...

Sorry that is a three minutes now. So we're issued with the lights on but it's a three minutes. Sorry.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:13:37

Any questions to Councillor Chris Childress? Any other councillors?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:13:49

Councillor Alex Gillingwood. I just want to clarify that Councillor Broadbent,

he is the ward member, not you, but you are the adjacent ward member.

Correct. Thank you. That's all right.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:13:59

OK, next speaker will be Councillor Steve Broadbent.

Cllr Steven Broadbent - 0:14:04

Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. Good evening. Sorry, I've only just made it,

but literally in time, thanks to being in London.

Maybe because Councillor Chiltern was running out of time,

the themes I think of his concerns marry with mine.

We don't always agree on a lot of things,

but on this we do.

I think this fundamentally is about the right thing to do.

This clearly says in the report

that there is a strong element of greenbelt in this site.

And whilst this is part retrospective, and I heard Councillor Chilton saying about the

local plan, we've done five different call for sites, there has been a Greenbelt assessment,

and whilst we don't have the full weight of that now, the right thing to do is not allow

the erosion, the incremental erosion of the Greenbelt through the chaos that is retrospective

planning applications.

The chaos that will ensue is significant.

There is a reason this site performs strongly and that is to prevent the urban sprawl.

I recognise the report goes into mitigations and ways to deal with that and tries to come

to a balanced judgement to suggest that should not be the case.

This is definitively not grey belt.

This does play a strong part in green belt considerations.

I think there are a number of technical points where the report is trying to help biodiversity

net gain being at 6 .5 % instead of 10.

But I would just ask people, when you are balancing this in the way that you are going

to have to, that that very recent Green Belt assessment, and all this is best probably

explained in Section 4 .13, is the starting point.

To erode that, to allow retrospective applications that will only mean over time that green belt

is taken away is the way chaos ensues.

We want a plan -led local plan, ideally.

The government have put the numbers up.

They've changed the allocations on where gypsum traveller sites are there.

To throw away the green belt on behalf of four static vans and four touring vans is

something I believe we will come to lament. The conditions are fine but on

and Chris Chilton's asked some more but frankly this is about the right

thing to do the green belt is only there once your balance knowing where we will

get to through local plan this site did not come forward in five rounds of

call for sites shows this is a wrong development in the wrong place and and

landscaping to create a green belt screening is not the same as the green

about so I think it should be refused.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:16:57

Thank you Steve.

Any questions?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:17:05

Councillor Alex Collingwood.

Thank you Chairman.

I just want to clarify.

You did say section 4 .12 and 4 .13 both applied but you talked about 4 .13.

That's probably just a whole bit.

Cllr Steven Broadbent - 0:17:20

Absolutely right Councillor.

I think I'm short -cutting the notes that I made in the speech, but yes, quite right.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:17:27

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:17:29

And next speaker is Craig Smith.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

Public Speaker - 0:17:37

I've always been very clear about my position on development in our countryside.

Our green belt, our farmland, and the Chilterns National Landscape deserve full protection,

and that's why I agree with the previous two speakers and why I cannot support this application

in my constituency. This is agricultural land. It is outside the settlement boundary. It is in the

Greenbelt and it is within the Chilterns national landscape. My biggest concern is the Greenbelt

assessment that has been done. The council's own 2026 evidence places this land within HW007 and

says that the area makes a strong contribution to stopping the unrestricted sprawl of High Wickham.

It talks about the limited amount of development, the lack of significant urbanising influences,

and says further development would represent an extension into the Greenbelt.

Yet the report before you, Councillors, tonight reaches a different conclusion for this particular

piece of land.

I understand that officers can undertake a more detailed assessment of an individual

site that I simply do not understand have features such as roads, woodland, field boundaries

can be recognised in the wider assessment which still concludes that this land performed

strongly and then very similar features are relied upon here to reduce its contribution

to only moderate. Those two conclusions sit very uneasily together.

In 2023 an application at nearby Ladies Mile barn for an access road and gates was refused.

Among the reasons were harm to the landscape,

character of the Chilterns AONB as it was at the time,

harm to green belt openness and encroachment

into the countryside.

I accept that the NPPF has very badly changed since then

and that this is a different application,

but the countryside hasn't changed,

the Chilterns National Landscape hasn't moved,

and the sensitivity of this location has not disappeared.

Indeed, the report before you accepts that this development

would have some localised impact on the Chilterns national landscape that puts

it mildly. This is Greenbelt agricultural land and nationally protected landscape

and when the council's own evidence says this area plays a strong role in

preventing the outward urban sprawl of High Wycombe, members should take that

extremely seriously. I therefore ask the committee to agree with me, with

Council broadband with Councillor Chilton a cross -party set of objections here this evening and

Absolutely throw this out as Councillor broadband said do the right thing for our countryside

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:20:19

Thank you any question to Grace Smith

Next speaker Gil Eaton

Public Speaker - 0:20:32

Thank you. My name is Jill Eaton Charter Town planner representing nearby residents

My clients raised their strongest objections to the proposal.

They have submitted detailed letters of objection and a petition of over 700 signatures.

Their objections are as follows.

Firstly, harm to the national landscape.

The development will have an adverse impact on the Chilterns national landscape.

This land is afforded statutory protection by the levelling up and regeneration act and

the countryside rights of way act 2000 and substantial weight is to be placed on the

importance of conserving and enhancing these areas.

The proposal will have an adverse urbanising effect

with features including hard standing domestic components

of vehicle parking, very significant bonds introduced

without planning permission, which alter the natural

topography and introduce forms of landscaping

which are not part of the existing landscape character.

Our clients feel strongly that this is harmful

to the national landscape, which is a legally designated

area in recognition of its outstanding natural beauty and permanently changing

the character of this part of the area. These landscape impacts are insufficient,

insufficiently justified, the mitigation is inadequate, it's directly

harmful and should result in a clear reason for refusal. In terms of

secondaries in Greenbelt, it's inappropriate development, it is not

justified as explained by other speakers, this area has recently been assessed as

providing a strong contribution to purpose A

of Greenbelt criteria,

in that it cheques the unrestricted sprawl

of large built -up areas.

It will have an urbanising impact

which will cause harm to the Greenbelt,

harm to the openness, and should be refused.

Thirdly, in relation to unauthorised development,

my clients are also very concerned

with the unauthorised nature of the works,

how insufficient regard is had to MPPF 2026 policy DMA.

and this matter has substantial weight. And finally number four in relation to

future expansion and wider concerns. There is concern as to the future

expansion of the pitches which would be harmful to the special character of the

national landscape and green belt. Wider concerns with traffic highway safety

drainage environmental and ecological harm and residential immunity. Also the

of commercial vehicles and unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure.

Whilst we're very strongly opposed if you are minded to approve clear and

enforceable conditions are absolutely essential restricting the pitches,

restricting commercial vehicles, restricting other paraphernalia as per

condition 3 and any permission should be temporary allowing the council to

provide more suitable sites affected in less affected areas

and personal condition as well.

In summary, the pitch shortages should be resolved

strategically, not by compromising.

Thank you, your time is up.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:23:32

Thank you.

Any questions from Mr. Eaton?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:23:38

Councillor, Alistair Collingwood.

Chairman, the speaker talked about policy DMA

and I can't find that in our reports.

It's evenly listed.

So I'm curious as to where, which part of the planning process DM8 comes from.

I'm not making a judgement either way, but just curious to understand where DM8 fits

within the whole, because it talks about DM32, DM13, DM14.

There's a whole bunch of DM policies quoted in the report, but I can't find DM8 in our

report at all.

So just to explain what does that actually mean in layman's terms, to make sure I've

just not missed anything.

Public Speaker - 0:24:18

As per the August 2026 MPPF there's a policy requiring substantial weight to be placed

on unauthorised development when considering the planning balance.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:24:31

Thank you the next speaker is Tony White you've got three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:24:36

Good evening it is not possible in the time allotted to carry out a full and comprehensive

review of the application with you this evening. It is taken that you've all seen and read

the officers comprehensive report. The planning officers have worked hard in

assessing this site and it must therefore feel reassuring as members of

the Planning Committee that your officers are carrying out thorough

assessments of planning applications before reaching their recommendations

for you and for your ultimate consideration and decision. The

government's direction of delivery whether we agree with or object to the

government's commitment and determination to bring forward a

substantial increase in the supply and housing it is clear it has been decided

to do so to ensure we meet the housing needs of our communities, all of them. We see at

chapter 6 of the MPPF entitled delivering a sufficient supply of homes where the government

sets out clearly in the pretext objective for the policies. It says this the objective for the

policies in this chapter is to support the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes

and traveller sites. The application has been under consideration by this council since early 2025

and has been thoroughly examined against the local and the national planning policies.

The officer concluding with the recommendation to approve, something I hope you can agree

with and support as the decision makers this evening.

The council has a significant unidentified need to deliver over the coming years to meet

its statutory requirements. At 4 .21 of the report it clearly shows you the scale of the

policy criteria to be defined as grey belt land within the green belt when

applying the appropriate assessment to the site specific area, the site itself,

not the wider area covered by the report that you've heard this evening from

other speakers. This does not mean that the surrounding areas or site itself

ceases to be green belt but for the purposes of this application alone in

this moment it qualifies for the exception to inappropriate development

under policy GB7G1, grey belt.

If this council meets its need under GB7G2,

then grey belt will not be an issue in the green belt

because the site would still be in appropriate development.

National landscape, former AOMB.

At 4 .36 of the report, the officer sets out

the appropriate test for the protection

of national landscape, which government relaxed

in the 2026 MPPF.

Rightly concluded at 4 .4 there is no unacceptable harm to national landscape policy.

Planning conditions DM31E of the MPPF makes it clear that in order to bring forward appropriate

development we should seek to use planning conditions.

There are 13 proposed and acceptable to the applicants in this application to ensure that

we bring forward an appropriate development.

I finish by respectively asking that you carefully consider the officer's assessment and recommendation

and result resolved sorry vote to resolve to grant planning permission this evening

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:27:40

in accordance with the planning policies and for no other reason thank you.

I thank you any question to Mr White.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:27:50

Councillor Safra thank you chairman um it's interesting listening to you what you've just

said if you had all that information why did your applicant go about building a

bond and everything before seeking planning permission I don't understand

that if you've got all that information and it was allowed then why didn't you

go down the right route of doing it why did you do it unofficially then

Mr. White, do you want to answer that?

You would like me to answer, yes.

Public Speaker - 0:28:25

OK, in 2025 the planning policies were different.

The introduction of DM8 for intentional and authorised development that was referenced

earlier and substantial weight being applied has only been introduced in August of 2026.

It's not illegal in this country to carry out development.

There is a mechanism for retrospective planning applications which is perfectly lawful, which

is why we have certificate of lawful use. People make mistakes on a regular basis

it isn't that they've carried out a criminal act it's that you will find

people from all sectors of communities that may build an extension incorrect

they may have got the roof height wrong people carry out work and that's why we

have the retrospective planning regime. I can't tell you as to why there they did

what they did at the time I can only tell you they've sought to work with the

council and the planning department to seek permission and have carried out no

more work since it was brought to their attention that planning permission was

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:29:20

required. Thank you. Any more questions? Now it's open to the committee members.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:29:32

I was going to start first. Alex. Councillor Conlon. Thank you, I did actually go to the

site visit today deliberately and I actually walked all the way around it

down the footpath into Ladies for a while, into Bambinos and everywhere,

and beyond. And my initial thought process was it was quite urban, but then when I actually

walked around the site, my view changed because it's like, oh actually, you then see it clearly

is where we are now with Bambinos and Lady Marl now, that is the end of the urban part

of High Wycombe and of Terry's. So I'm curious, and I keep reading through the report, I still

don't understand how on earth they're trying to suggest grey belt with GB7 because it's

clearly green belt and it's clearly open field and clearly the retrospective application

seems to have in effect by doing it respectively has fortunately changed the nature of it whereas

before that it would have still been the green field you see in front of us so I still don't

quite understand where the officers are coming from in terms of GB7 because for me it doesn't

apply, it is Greenbelt.

And when you look at the wider context,

it is fully Greenbelt and it is clearly part A,

it clearly is the defence of the urban spool

of High Wycombe going out further to Cryers Hill,

to Kings Hill and everywhere beyond, right?

It is the edge of the town.

So I'm mystified by the GB7B.

So just, that's my sort of thought process at the moment.

I'm not necessarily put a formal proposal yet

because I'd rather hear the debate because again I went with open mind, took the report

with me, walked around the site. But having listened to the board member, I have a much

more understanding from the board member than I do from the officer's report. So that's

where I'm thinking my sort of processes at the moment, Chairman. But if you need to come

back to me and propose, I will come with a proposal later.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:31:34

Thank you Councillor.

Obviously you'd like to respond.

There was a technical question there.

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:31:46

Okay so.

The question was about Greybelt

because I've read the report.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:50

I can't see how it's coming out as Greybelt.

I can only see it's coming out as Greenbelt.

It clearly says it's Greenbelt under policy part A

open sprawl.

I can't see based on what the officer's written

how you're trying to justify Greybelt

because I can't get that.

And having seen that with previous applications

and Mr. Martin will know from previous ones

you had previously, we clearly said stuff was great.

Was Greenbelt not great about?

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:32:16

I mean, that was in the recent meeting we had to Chairman.

Thank you, Chair.

The starting point is that the application site

was is within the Greenbelt.

However, the policy sets out at.

GB7G.

OK. Sorry. OK.

The starting point is that it is Greenbelt.

But the policy sets out that we need to consider whether the land

in Greenbelt is considered to be Greybelt.

And that is out in the National Planning Policy Framework

as our report and policy GP7G.

And as I previously mentioned, the definition of Greybelt consists of.

of.

The grey belt is defined as land in the green belt comprising previously developed land

and or any other land that in either case does not strongly contribute to any of the

purposes A, B or D. Those purposes consist of A, checking the unrestricted sprawl of

large build up areas, which is the main purpose in this debate.

The. OK. Can everyone hear me.

Right. So the Greenbelt assessment 2026 is a strategic

assessment. It's considered as a large parcel of the land.

And whilst it concluded that that large larger parcel

of land strongly contributed to Purpose A.

The document also says that a site specific

assessment is required.

When considering the purpose and whether it contributes strongly, it's set out at Annex

B of the NPPF, Annex E, sorry.

And it says that for a site to contribute moderately to this purpose, assessment areas

that contribute moderately are likely to be adjacent to or near a large build -up area

but include one or more features that weakens the land's contribution to that purpose.

As such, but not limited to, having physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development,

be partially enclosed by existing development such that new development would not result in an incongruous pattern of development,

contain existing development and or being subject to other urbanising influences. And for the reasons set out in my report,

The development is quite contained in proximity to other physical features.

It doesn't result in a finger of development out into the Greenbelt land.

And it's subject to urbanising influences.

Therefore, there's features that weaken the land's contribution to Purpose A,

and therefore I concluded that it contributed moderately rather than strongly.

So therefore, overall, after the site specific assessment, the application site is considered

to utilise grey belt land and therefore comply with policy GB7G and therefore it's not an

appropriate development in the green belt.

Thank you.

Any other speakers?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:35:33

Councillor Ayser.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:35:37

Thank you.

I always find it really perturbing when there's a whole pile of draught assessments that haven't

been signed off yet being used for us to consider when we've, we're actually, I thought, obliged

to go by what's currently in situ.

I am worried that it's green belt and it is encroaching, but because it's such a small

parcel we're kind of almost letting it off.

I don't quite get that analogy because like you have one small parcel and another small

parcel comes along, another small parcel comes along, and then you've lost the whole field.

So I don't, I'd like to know whether there's any interpretation within what you've decided

that we can equally interpret the other way. Because obviously it's got to be, you know,

sort of considered this is correct, this is not correct, but it sounds to me like we've

got interpretation. And I don't think I'd be happy from what I've heard if it is open

for interpretation, taking the interpretation

that's been given, because that to me is saying

you're allowed to build on green belt

if you just do it small and only as a tiny plot

then you're all right, because that just sets a precedent.

So is it open for interpretation?

Is it something you've interpreted

or something that is fact that we can't get around?

Thank you.

Obviously you'd like to respond to that.

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:37:01

Okay, thank you.

I mean it is a planning judgement,

and having regard to the development planning policies

and other material considerations.

I set out my planning judgement in relation to the policies

and these specific circumstances of the proposal.

I don't think I can advise on how to refuse the development

because that would go against my recommendation.

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:37:29

Councillor Safra.

Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:37:34

And it's one of these things that's dear to my heart

because I was born in the ward, live all my life in the ward,

so I know that ward at the back of my hand.

And growing up in the 70s was a difficult time,

so I understand what the gypsy and travellers

have to put up with, but this isn't against them

or anything like that.

Let's put that firstly out there.

We're not against that.

We're just saying that we're discussing this traveler's side, Gypsy Terre

traveler's side, if it's in the right location.

We get the same rubbish all the time as the tilt and balance thing.

And tilt and balance, you know, if the office is tilting it to their side, it's okay.

And then if it's tilted the other way, it's not okay.

So our job is to find, you know, and say, sorry, we don't agree with that.

and we move on.

And I was just reading and looking at the, you know,

the pack in front of me and, you know,

it says the, I would say the development

would change the character of the area.

Wouldn't you agree to that?

You know, the proposal would bring four residential,

you know, pitches into use again,

and those pitches will have vehicles,

fencing, facilities on site.

so that site will change forever I think.

The proposal would reduce openness of the green belt,

you've already got a bung there, et cetera, et cetera.

There would be harm to the Chiltern National Landscape,

I think so as well, and I think my colleagues

in the back do as well.

The Council's own report accepts the proposal

would have an impact on the special landscape of Chilterns,

so it's already saying that.

The landscape harm should not be described as minor,

as my friend said as well.

You know, the parcel of land,

whatever its size it may be, its green belt,

we need to protect it.

So, you know, I'm just making notes, Dan.

Too many important matters, as one of my colleagues said,

of we're leaving it to, you know,

for the offices to deal with, which I think is not right.

The application still needs detailed drainage,

water, landscaping, lighting, ecology on that as well.

Drainage is not clear on that.

Foul water is not also clear on that as well.

There are other conditions about wildlife.

The report refers to possible protected species

including badgers, reptiles, amphibians,

nesting birds, and hedgehogs.

So we need to have a report on that, what to do as well.

So it's just difficult to say how we can approve this.

But I'm always here listening to what my other colleagues

say, planting as well is another issue.

We haven't had a planting thing on this.

Appearance of caravans is still unknown.

We don't know which kind of caravans

are gonna be used on the site.

I'm just going through this as we're going.

and the traffic movement we don't know for for commercial vehicles could be

kept on site as well as vehicles belonging to residents so you know

you've got the traffic movement there as well there's a problem.

Location as well I think is a problem we refer to public transport but simply

having transport nearby does not mean that the location is generally suitable.

I don't think so, I agree with that.

So there's loads of other things that need to be discussed,

but I'm here, I'm gonna listen to my colleagues.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:41:22

Thank you, Councillor Zafiropoulos.

Any other speaker?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:41:28

Obviously, yesterday I went on the site visit.

As a former resident of the area,

someone used to walk their dog considerably

around the patch. I can understand the views of the offices in terms of the seclusion of

the site, but is that really sufficient to turn over the Greenbelt definition?

Material considerations are subjective, and usually I'm very black and white on these

sort of things, but today it's really a question of what weight other colleagues on the committee

give the existing positions. So I'm happy to hear more from them before I make a decision

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:42:13

in this case. Thank you.

Mr Ray Martin - 0:42:23

Sorry, before you go on to debate the other issues that Councillor Rogers raised, can

we try and pull together some clarity of thought in terms of Greenbelt? If you were to conclude

this is green belt and not grey belt then that changes the starting point for

the consideration accepted. In answer to Councillor Hewitt's point, yes that is a

matter of judgement, professional judgement. The reason that the officers have

concluded that it is grey belt is set out very clearly in the report but you

are entitled to reach a different conclusion. If you've got clear

justification for doing so. The reference has been made to the council's own study

which has taken place and I've got no intention of undermining that study but

that study is in relation to a larger parcel of land, it's subject to

examination, hasn't been through that process and therefore at the moment that

study in itself can only carry limited weight.

You need to make the assessment as to whether or not you accept that this is under the definition

of grey belt because if you do accept it's under the definition of grey belt, then this

development becomes acceptable in principle.

It's appropriate development.

If it's not appropriate development, that's not the end of the storey because just because

it's greenbelt that's not enough reason to say no. It's a very good starting

point for saying no because inappropriate development is by

definition harmful. But you have to weigh in the planning balance even if you were

to conclude this isn't greenbelt and it's greenbelt. And by the way greybelt

doesn't mean that land is no longer greenbelt it's just considered as

something else within the green belt. But if you do conclude that it's green belt

rather than grey belt, you then have to go on and consider are there any very

special circumstances that would be causing you to accept this development

in the green belt. Doesn't become appropriate if you don't think it's grey

belt, but in the planning balance you have to weigh the fact that we have a

unmet need for gypsy and traveller sites and that should be

given substantial weight.

So it's not enough to simply say it's green built, it's

unacceptable. You have to weigh the harm that that causes

against the benefit of the provision of the gypsy and traveller

pitches which are being proposed under this application.

Just wanted to get that in early because I don't want you to

cloud your judgement in going forward. Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:15

Thank you for that. Any other speakers?

is Chancellor Fares.

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 0:45:21

A couple of questions.

Given the site location within the children

national landscape, how have offices assessed the impact

of the caravan's hard standing and screening bond

on the landscape character and openness of the greenbelt?

That's number one question.

The second question is what evidence supports

the identified need for the accommodation and how has that need been balanced against

any harm to the green belt and landscape?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:54

Thank you.

Officer, you like to respond to questions to Mr. Kuzloffias?

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:46:01

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, so in terms of the impact on the green belt, I took that on my report and I considered

it to be grey belt and complying with the policy.

So therefore, by definition, it's not an appropriate development.

So openness was not a factor.

And then the second part was the impact upon the landscape.

I mean, as you can see from the site and the plans,

it's very contained, there's very limited visibility into the site.

So how the landscape setting was experienced within the landscape is fairly limited.

The size and scale of the development is quite

small in scale and is hugged by other physical features.

So it's not a development that extends out into the landscape.

So I concluded that the development

was of limited impact.

Noted that there was impact in terms of how I balanced

the benefits of the proposal against the harms

I've set out in the planning balancing

section of the report.

There is quite substantial deficit and under supply

in G &T pitches, which does carry a substantial weight

in the planning balance.

So weighing those, the harms and the benefits,

it was concluded that the application should succeed.

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:47:37

Any other speaker?

Councillor.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:46

Sorry, Councillor.

I mean, as Mark said, I think the starting point

is exactly what he talked about.

Do we think it's Greenbelt or do we think it's Greybelt?

And that's absolutely, Councillor Hill,

but I was just gonna say that's.

I was.

The rest of the questions.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:48:05

Sorry, Councillor, I was just coming to the next part.

Councillor Haynes.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:48:10

Yeah, thank you.

And I appreciate what you're saying about the Greenbelt.

one thing also that is the same as the question of whether it's considered urban

sprawl and the same thing applies in that it's a small area so it's not so

much urban sprawl but it's still the beginnings of urban sprawl so if that

was open to interpretation I'd just like to be able to be fully aware of whether

those two things combined which were the council did assess previously if we were

to interpret that land, even if it's being carved up,

we're still considering the land

as Greenbelt and Urban Sprawl.

Whether our interpretation of that would hold

any further weight in being able to judge the application,

the two combined, thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:48:59

Yes, I'm conscious that I'm now putting my officer

Mr Ray Martin - 0:49:07

in a very difficult position

because we're talking hypothetically

rather than what's been recommended in the report.

So it'd be really difficult for him to answer that.

But in terms of, as in he's already reached a judgement

and you're asking for is it possible

to reach a different judgement.

In terms of the urban sprawl question,

if I ask you to look at the page 31 plan in your pack,

as I said, the difference between my officer's assessment

and that's in relation to the emerging local plan

is that it's relating to a different area.

So the conclusion on the wider area

was based on a more strategic basis.

This is being looked at on a local basis.

But if you look at that plan

in terms of where the built form already is

within this proximity,

immediately to the west of this land,

you have got an existing form of building.

And therefore, the argument is that the encroachments

that would be resulting from this development

is actually not going outside of the,

if you like the envelope of the built form

into the countryside,

and that's why a different conclusion has been reached

in terms of this particular site

rather than the overall site

which is looked at in the wider study.

As I said, that's open to interpretation.

You've had the professional judgement of the officer

set out in the report, but if you've got

justifiable reasons to reach a different conclusion,

that's within your gift.

Thank you, could I add something?

Go on, officer.

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:51:02

Yeah, I think part of your question was

could this lead to future development being enabled?

I think each application is assessed on its own merits.

So if further development was to come forward as a proposal,

then that would obviously be considered against what's been proposed

and the policies at that time.

So, yeah, the assessment is solely based on what they're proposing

and as set out of my report. Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:51:32

Okay, Councillor Alex Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:39

Thank you, Chairman.

Because I end up walking around the whole site, page 31, if you read the page, sorry,

go back to page 7 and look at the planning history of this place, they have one, two,

three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven applications already of CREEP,

creep, mission creep and more mission creep of agricultural building, change to dwelling.

And then when you look at page 31 which Mr Martin just asked us to look at, because I

ended up going down that footpath, I could see the road that is shown on there already

built. So if you think this is the application this is going to have, you are sadly mistaken

because literally that road there to the back end of Lady's Mile is already physically there,

already built ready so they can go out into the whole wider area, right? So I'm sorry

it's

Yes, we're looking at the merits of what's been putting for us

But based on the planning history and the applicants behaviour and in retrospective

We DM eight run definitely comes into play here because I think that they are

Trying to ride a kurten horses through our playing policies

So that's page 31 if you didn't change page 33 which talks about the Greenbelt assessment

what it shows you very clearly,

and that's the bit about this bit here on page 33,

is if you let this one go,

you then have terriers going forward,

you're gonna have hazemir going forward,

you're gonna have with Maren going forward,

all, and Chryslal, all merging together,

because that's in essence what you're doing to do

if you let this one go through.

So to me, DM8 definitely applies,

and B, the green belt is absolutely our starting point,

and this is not a grey belt assessment at all,

It is a pure Greenbelt assessment on that basis.

You then look at part A, you then look at the scores on page 33, page 34, the risk clearly

then fails.

Right?

So if you want to put it full on the pros and the general, I'm happy to do so, but I'm

rather happy to, if the rest of you want to look and consider, but only because I randomly

walked down that footpath and went around the whole site by the error.

I worked out actually it fully is Greenbelt, it is Chilterns AOMB, it is National Landscape,

and it will be a full encroachment.

And I then did see the existing stuff that was already there,

went, wow.

Because initially I went and parked up, I went, oh,

what's the problem?

What's the issue?

And then by doing the walk, I went, oh, wow, OK,

it really is an issue.

So happy to formally propose that we

go for refusal, Chairman, but happy to listen to more debate,

if you wish.

Up to you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:54:13

I would like to debate whether it's a green belt or not.

Okay, up to you, members, are you feeling the green belt or is there not?

Can I start with the Councillor Safra Scudamata?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:54:29

Thank you, Chairman. I totally understand where Mr Martin is coming from and I respect what you've said.

but I'm not going away from your professionalism or anything of the officers.

But some of you guys know I've had an operation just now,

and I was in the hands of professionals, and they messed my operation up.

So there's no difference with professionals messing up planning applications.

So we're here to debate this and you know obviously we respect what the

professionals opinion is but there is our opinion as well and we're taking our

hope the professional take our opinion in so my opinion is it's green belt so

you know and I hope you know I'm open to listen to the other members of the

committee to their opinion what they think.

If it's Graybelt, if they say it's Graybelt, it's Graybelt.

But it is and it's Greenbelt,

and they've developed on Greenbelt.

We can't give them a sweetener or a smarty saying,

you know, afterwards they've developed it and say,

all right guys, we'll do a, you know,

a list of, you know, paper saying that how

we can overcome this and all that.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with it,

but I'm open to listen to the other members

on this committee as well.

But I have respect for my offices as well.

Thank you, Councillor Safraqui.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:56:06

Any other speaker?

Cllr Michael West - 0:56:12

Okay, Councillor West, you've been very quiet tonight.

There's a lot to listen to.

I don't always agree with Councillor Broadbent either.

But on this one, actually,

I think the matter's quite simple.

If you visit the site, and I know some of you have,

you will realise that actually the area we're talking about

does not make a strong contribution to Greenbelt.

But the only reason it doesn't make a strong contribution

is because of the work that's been carried out already.

Right?

And we cannot actually accept, therefore,

that this land is anything other than Greenbelt

and area of national landscape.

And we wouldn't accept any development,

any proposal in this,

we wouldn't accept that the building of three houses,

for instance, even though we're short of land supply,

outweighs the benefits of Greenbelt and national landscape.

And when it comes to talking about

small areas of development,

a boundary is a boundary.

You can't move it a short distance just for convenience sake.

So however sympathetic we are to the shortage of traveller sites, this should not be one

of them.

Quite simple.

Thank you.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:57:36

Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Councillor Hazel.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:57:40

Thank you.

I agree with what Councillor West has just said.

And I do feel that I entirely agree with Councillor Roger in terms of, you know, this is nothing

to do with the type of development is purely a greenbelt and urban sprawl issue for me.

And I accept that retrospective planning permission is entirely part of a process that happens

these days.

But normally it's because you think it's perfectly fine, you build it, and then you get the permission

afterwards.

I think because it's been down as greenbelt and urban sprawl, there has, if any research

had been done prior to this, it would have flagged it as an issue.

So I can't believe that the people that put this in place did not realise it was an issue.

And I think therefore we can't consider that now it's been built it's okay because it wouldn't

have been all right to be built and it was in plain fact when it was built.

So for me, I think we have to look at it as if it's not retrospective because it was all

there on the table.

and I do think we have to say that if that wasn't there,

we wouldn't be approving.

So that's my personal opinion.

I think it's obvious that the build was going on,

green belt, and it's probably the only way to do it.

Does anyone else?

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:05

Thank you, Councillor Heiser.

Councillor Mosedale.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:59:12

We are surrounded by beautiful villages of,

if we allow this applicant,

and we might open the flat gates for the other villages

and we must start getting losing green belts.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Yupa.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:25

Any other councillors, committee members?

Mr Ray Martin - 0:59:54

Sorry, just to take us on to the next step.

You've had a debate about whether or not you consider its Greenbelt, and I think probably

most of you have formed an opinion on that.

If the majority are of the view that this should be considered as Greenbelt and doesn't

classify as grey belt and therefore is inappropriate development in the green belt.

It's necessary for you then to consider whether or not there are any very special circumstances

that would outweigh the harm to the green belt.

And as I said earlier, one of the things you have to consider is the unmet need for this

type of accommodation as evidenced in our own local plan and emerging local plan, which

has to be given substantial weight.

So you would have to weigh in the planning balance,

whether you think the harm to the green belt

carries more weight than the benefit that would accrue

from this provision of this type of housing.

So that's the next thing for you to discuss

before you decide whether to make a recommendation

for whatever you decide to make.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:01:01

Councillor Stroud.

Councillor Stroud, on the side with its, like to speak now.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:11

Councillor Alex Collingwood.

The sense I get, thank you Mr. Miles for giving us the clarification and again, like Councillor

Lloyd, I respect the Council's viewpoint that the majority of the committee feel and based

on the evidence given us in the report,

that it is a Greenbelt assessment.

And for me, having walked the site, it is literally,

you walk across the roads to the other estate,

and you go literally from urban to full on.

That picture is a really good example.

It's literally full on Greenbelt, Chilterns A and B,

Aroonas and National Landscape.

It's almost like night and day in terms of why,

in terms of what's literally, you cross that Kings Hill Road

and you go from full urban with a housing state

of 354 hundred houses or whatever it is,

and you then go into that part of the field

and you go, wow, okay, actually, this is properly

of high quality, high grade, greenbelt,

and also of Chilterns National Landscape.

For me, that's where I don't feel the application,

even with unmet need, and we know there's unmet need

for housing and or travel sites or whatever it is.

I still think the quality of the,

in fact it's the one green lung left.

When you look at page 33, it's the one green lung left

between Hazemere, Widmer and Terriers.

It's the one green loop.

You've actually got, and actually it happened to be

Lady was walking her dog down the same footpath

in front of me.

So there's the one bit of area that actually is available

for the residents to actually have something

of actual countryside away from the urban sprawl

of High Wycombe as it were.

So for me, yes, and when I looked at page 33 and 34,

definitely in terms of, there's no other register to defend.

Once you've gone that, lose that edge, you lose the edge.

You would have an erosion

between the neighbouring settlements.

You could, because literally,

based on what he's already put there,

with the other service roads,

actually at the back of Ladies Mill anyway,

next application coming in is gonna be

literally putting housing across the rest of the field.

right? But it does fundamentally protect the openness of the countryside and

you know safeguards that environment and stops the encroachment. So for me they

fundamentally outweigh what's being proposed here and it wouldn't matter if

it was three houses, ten houses, whatever is there. Any form of development to me it

fundamentally changes the green belt and does a full encroachment on that green

belt so for me I would propose that we refuse the application now whether DMA

applies or not I'm not so sure but certainly for me the green belt bit

definitely outweighs the potential of any development there as the council has

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:04:02

also said thank you come council because of suffer the radio thank you chairman

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:04:10

I totally understand what I'm sorry mr. Martin said I just called him

I don't know what's going on.

So Mr. Martin had said, but I think the thing is that,

you know, my colleagues would put me right.

We have to have 95 ,000 houses over 10 years or something,

and traveller sites as well.

And that's across all of Buckinghamshire, not Wickham.

So, you know, these four or eight sites for caravan

is just a small thing.

but I think we're moving away from,

it's part of Buckinghamshire we're dealing with,

not just Wickham, so that site can be transferred

somewhere else as well in Buckinghamshire.

Housing, 95 ,000 that we need is across Buckinghamshire,

so we gotta keep it in that context as well.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:05:02

Thank you, Councillor Saffron.

Councillor Harris.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:05:07

I'm not gonna please my colleagues here, a number of them.

The difficulty for me here is,

whilst I hear that there's a possibility

that next week we're gonna see a development here

and a development there,

trying to substantiate the special reasons

why the damage to the green belt here would be so extensive,

I find difficult to match.

I accept Mr. Martin's views on that.

But as far as the remainder is concerned,

we've got the recreational uses either side,

which give a certain amount of protection.

But more to the point, our emerging developer,

our emerging local plan should give us the protection

to the remainder of the site.

So the question is, do we let this go

and rely on our officers to come back with the strong protection

that we need for the Greenbelt in the remaining location or not.

And that's the problem.

If we wanted to point to Buckinghamshire and say next

week they're going to develop there, yes, they are.

It's happening all over Buckinghamshire.

And we've got to find places for travellers as much as we've got

to find places for affordable housing, et cetera.

To me, this, as I say, having walked the boundary of the site,

yes, I can hear what Councillor Collingwood is saying,

but it is completely self -contained,

bunding or not, the remaining foliage

all the way around the site to dog walkers, et cetera,

going along the pathway there,

you can't see in that much.

So you've got excellent vision points coming out of there

for vehicles coming in and out.

So we can't argue that there's a bad access

onto the highways.

In fact, it's better than most of the big developments,

is probably better than the development opposite.

So I'd have real trouble.

We can stay here and we can debate it all night,

but I'd have difficulty in not approving this.

And I know some people very well who are gonna hate me for it

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:07:13

but I'm afraid that's where I see things.

Thank you, Councillor Nix.

Councillor Haynes.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:07:18

Thank you.

I mean, I think from the urban sprawl

and the greenbelt thing,

which I think is open to interpretation,

which I'm inclined to say is important for us to consider, sticking with the original

assessment.

I also think that in terms of the number of – I think that should hold quite a weight

considering we're only looking at four static and four touring because it's not a big

site.

And I can understand if it was providing, actually, you know, if it was somewhere different,

more appropriate, and actually contained 20 or 30, you're more likely to sway it because

it's actually giving a massive contribution to the shortage we've got.

And I totally accept we've got a shortage, and I'm sure everyone will be desperately

pleased when the local plan finally goes through and we don't have a shortage anymore.

But to me, it's not enough of a contribution to cut down that to overturn our assessment

of Greenbelt and urban sprawl.

So I would consider that would hold quite a bit of weight

on the side of Greenbelt and urban sprawl

for the fact that it's such a small site.

And although I completely commend Councillor Harris

for saying that hopefully the local plan

will secure the rest of it from being built on,

we all know that precedents get set.

And we all know that despite the strongest planning

regulations being in place, if something's happened before,

something will happen again.

And I get it if it's done in thinking it would pass, but I can't see how this was built thinking

it would pass.

And that's where I'm kind of hoping to sort of express that I'd like to sort of put this

up for refusal based on the original assessment and the fact that it's too few caravans and

touring facilities to actually make a big indent

into what we show off.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:09:22

Thank you, Kistler.

Do you wanna reply to that?

Mr Ray Martin - 1:09:28

Yeah, sorry, I need to come back on a point

you made specifically.

The emerging local plan, whilst it makes allocations

for general housing that will meet our target

in terms of providing a five -year supply,

doesn't adequately cater for the needs identified for gypsy and

traveller sites, we will still have a shortfall after allocating

some sites of around about 200 pitches.

So I just didn't want you to not bear that in mind as part of

your consideration.

So that's a factor that has to be taken into account.

I don't want to lead the committee, not my job, but having listened to the debate very

carefully I think you've got two choices here. Either somebody's going to put a recommendation

to support the officer's report and suggest that this be allowed for the reasons set out,

or somebody's gonna make a recommendation

that the committee take the view

that this is Greenbelt rather than Graybelt.

I would suggest that your reason for refusal

would use the council's recent survey work

that's been alluded to by various people

to evidence the facts to support your conclusion on that.

And I would suggest from the debate that you've used that you would also introduce a second

reason for refusal which would be in relation to the impact on the national landscape.

And those two things, impact on Greenbelt, impact on national landscape, weighed in the

planning balance caused substantial harm which outweighs the benefit to the provision of

the housing.

that's I think the choice that you've got at this stage.

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:11:30

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Alex Collingwood, can we finish now?

I see you've got something to add.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:11:38

Mr. Martin has just said,

he's articulated much more clearly

than I have been so far,

that those are my thought prices based on 4 .12, 4 .13,

which talks about the Greenbelt Assessment, HW -007,

seven, the impact on the Greenbelt, the impact on the national landscape does substantially

outweigh and I would say those are the two reasons why I think it would be refused because

to Councillor Huerta's point, I don't think what's been offered is actually going to really

make much difference to anything really and for whatever it's going to be, it doesn't

actually help in any way, shape or form. So for me, the impact on Greenbelt, the impact

on national landscape is a substantial weight to those that then means it substantially

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:12:24

outweighs the potential benefit of the application so council I'll it calling

what are you proposing do you have a seconder

council affairs are you seconding this

council show hands those are fair enough I'll it colleagues what refuse this on

I'll let Mr Martin in there for his due development and correct wording to make sure it's fully

We haven't yet come up with a formal form of wording but I'm very clear on what the

expectation is and as long as you're happy to allow us to take that sentiment away and

come up with the actual wording then I'm content to deal with it on that basis.

Yep, very happy with that Mr. Barton.

Thank you. Can I have a show of hands, a raise, whose proposal Alex Collingwood to refuse

this under green belts and seconded by Councillor Fiers.

My chairman, do we wait for the formal wording or?

Anyone against or abstained? Are you against or are you abstained?

Yes, I think it's clear that members felt that there was harm to the national landscape

and there was that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the green belt,

Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 1:14:12

that it wasn't grey belt because the site does provide a strong contribution to green

about purpose a in terms of the study that had been carried out recently and

that very special circumstances were not sufficient to outweigh that harm to the

green belt and the children's national landscape and we all put together a

formal form of words that encapsulates both of those reasons for refusal thank

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:14:38

you like general the planning committee council suffers that to take out the

meeting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:14:53

Thank you.

5 25/06402/OUT - OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road, Longwick

We move on to agenda item 5 application number 25 stroke 0 6 4 0 2 strokes OUT

OS parcel 3623 Thame Road, Longway. I'd like to hand over to Emma Crotty who will introduce this item.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 1:17:34

Thank you chair. Outline planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing buildings

and the erection of up to 40 dwellings together with the new access, landscaping and open space

on land to the rear properties on Tame Road, Longwick. All matters are reserved except for

the principal means of access. The site is approximately two hectares in size and with

the exception of the access road is roughly rectangular in shape and level. The site comprises

a mixture of land associated with an existing dwelling, open fields, a barn structure and a

There are two nearby Grade 2 listed cottages to the north of the site,

Sarra's Cottage and Old Orchard. The site is located on land between the settlement

of Longwick and the train line, albeit it's not directly adjacent to it. The land

is not within the settlement boundary of Longwick as demonstrated in your Agenda

Pack and I'll shortly show you on the PowerPoint too. The site is just over two

miles from Princes Risborough. The site is also not within the Greenbelt nor

National Landscape area. Turning to the photos, this is an aerial of the

development site within its wider location and this is a more zoomed in

version. This is the parameter plan for the site and shows where development and

open space would be. The listed buildings are at the end of the entrance road and

would have open space to the front and side.

Is that showing up?

Oh, do I do this?

Please, Pam.

Oh, here we go.

There are the list of buildings there.

This is a view southeast taken on the site.

and this is a view east. This is a similar view east but in wintertime. This is a view

south and you can see houses in the background. This is the barn on the site that is used for

storage and this is the stable on the site. The adjacent land to the north can be seen beyond it.

This is a view southwest.

The vehicles are on the neighbouring site.

This is another view towards the rear of the site with the neighbouring land in the background.

This is another view.

This is a view northeast towards the properties on Tame Road.

This is a view of the entrance, but it's a view from within the site.

This is a view of a neighbouring property that's located close to the entrance.

Here's another one close by the entrance and another.

and this is a view from the entrance looking down Tame Road towards the centre of Longwick.

And this is looking the other way so the north out of Longwick.

And this is a photo of the list of buildings by the entrance to the site.

This photo shows the conifer hedge that's between the site and the list of buildings.

So the list of buildings are beyond the conifer hedge.

This is an illustrative layout to demonstrate what could be achieved on the site.

As this is an outline with all matters reserved except the principal access.

And we're not assessing this plan and it won't be conditioned,

but gives an idea of what could go on the site.

This is the context plan which has recently been provided by the applicant

and this is it zoomed in which shows the approved layout for the

scheme for eight units permitted earlier this year at the adjacent site. So that's

to the north of the Red Edge.

This is the access layout, which also shows works

that would be carried out to Tame Road,

including the slight narrowing of the highway

and widening of the footway.

The access route would be 4 .8 metres wide at least,

and that's the minimum width for a two -way carriageway,

and with a footpath down one side.

This plan shows the site layout for the 2018 scheme that was permitted on this site for

a two -storey dwelling house.

This grey block is the house and these are the listed buildings and this is the barn

building.

This shows the layout of the scheme on the adjacent site to the north.

So this slide shows the settlement boundary as set out in the neighbourhood plan.

And I've drawn a red line round the site myself so the site is outside of the settlement boundary.

And this is just a more zoomed in version, so as you can see the site is

outside of the settlement boundary. You will note though that the properties to

the front of the site and the adjacent listing buildings are also outside of

the settlement boundary, but they're obviously not new buildings. So as you're

where a new MPPF was published recently

in the summer holidays.

This overhauled the document,

adding in national decision -making policies

to comply with rather than the paragraph format

in previous versions.

The introduction to the document clarifies

that it is a material consideration of critical importance,

that the plan led system should be genuinely plan led.

It states planning law requires that applications

for planning permission be determined

in accordance with the development plan

unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It confirms the national decision -making policies

in the framework in the MPPF are in material consideration

in making these decisions and should be read

alongside the policies in the development plan.

Whilst the planning report does refer

to the relevant MPPF policies,

I thought it would be worth presenting

some of the most relevant ones for you,

yeah, in this case to you.

So the first one is policy S3.

This states that there is a presumption

in favour of sustainable development

and outside settlements policy S5 should apply.

Policy S5 states only certain forms of development

should be approved outside of settlements

as set out in a provided list.

These should be approved unless the benefits of doing so

would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects

when assessed against the national decision -making policies

in the framework.

This list includes development which would address

an evidenced unmet need such as where a five -year

housing land supply can't be shown.

This is the case for the former Wickham area.

It goes on to say that development must be physically

well -related to an existing settlement

and be of a scale that can be accommodated,

taking into account the existing

or proposed infrastructure.

The third policy to note is S6,

which is about neighbourhood plans.

This states that for development proposals

involving the provision of housing,

the benefits of approving development

are likely to be substantially outweighed

by the adverse effects where a proposal

would conflict with a neighbourhood plan,

provided the neighbourhood plan is five years old or less.

In this instance, a neighbourhood plan

is older than five years.

The final policy to highlight is HE6,

which is about impact on heritage assets.

The council's heritage officers consider

that the development would result in low -level harm

to the nearby list of buildings,

which should be given substantial weight,

as per the new MPPF.

This MPPF policy states that proposals should be refused

where substantial harm would result

unless it's demonstrated that the harm is necessary

to achieve substantial public benefit that outweighs the harm.

In this instance, the provision of up to 40 dwellings, 48 of which would be affordable

housing in an area with an evidenced housing need is considered to be a substantial public

benefit.

The final slide shows imagery from Google Earth earlier this year, and I've identified

the site boundary with the red line.

It demonstrates the relationship of the site

with the settlement of Longwick.

We have a number of updates for this item

if you wouldn't mind turning to the update pack.

But in summary, members are advised

that the ecology officer has confirmed

that the applicant has demonstrated entry

into the Great Crested District Licencing Scheme

and raises no objection subject to additional conditions.

Comments have also been received from the NHS ICB and they advise that local GP practises

are operating at or above NHS capacity standards and support the need for a healthcare contribution.

A project has been named and a formula for calculating the contribution has been provided.

This was already in the recommendation and the applicant has agreed to this.

An additional representation has been received

regarding heritage impacts and policy DM31.

Officers remain of the view that whilst there is

low level harm of substantial weight to heritage assets,

the public benefits arising from the scheme,

including the delivery of housing and affordable housing,

outweigh that harm.

Consequently, officers do not consider there to be

a conflict with policy DM31.

The applicant has also supplied a relatively recent letter

to them from Thames Water confirming that there will be sufficient sewage

capacity in the adjacent foul water sewage network to serve the development.

Members should also note a number of minor corrections to the report including

correction of policy references and replacement of the access corridor

figure 5 with the correct extract from the parameter plan. These

amendments don't alter the planning balance or the recommendation. Turning to

I'm nearing the end.

Turning to the planning balance,

the proposed development would accord

with the majority of development plan policies

except spatial policies relating to the location

of new homes as it's outside the settlement boundary

of Longwick.

However, under the new MPPF, development for housing

which addresses an unmet need should be approved

outside of the settlement boundary

unless the benefits of doing so

would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.

Housing development needs to be physically well related

to an existing settlement and be of a scale

that can be accommodated,

taking into account the existing

or proposed availability of infrastructure.

Given that the council cannot currently demonstrate

a five -year supply of deliverable housing sites

and that the site abuts the settlement boundary of Longwick

and contributions to infrastructure can be secured

through the application, it is considered to meet

MPP policy for the location of development.

It is noted that there will be some heritage harm,

but again the framework enables this low level harm

to be outweighed by substantial public benefits,

which is considered to be the case.

On this basis, the recommendation is that the application

be delegated for approval,

subject to the satisfactory completion

of the legal agreement to secure the provision

of a minimum 48 % of the dwellings on site

for affordable housing split 80%,

affordable housing for rent and 20 intermediate housing,

financial contribution towards primary education,

financial contribution towards healthcare infrastructure,

a financial contribution towards

the local bus service provision,

travel plan monitoring fee,

and future management and maintenance

of onsite amenity space and SUDS,

and the imposition of planning conditions

as per your report.

or to refuse if these can't be secured.

Thank you Chair, sorry.

Thank you Emma.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:30:46

We have public speaking on this item.

We'll shortly hear from them.

Please note that I've used my discretion as chairman

to allow the MP his own time to speak.

So I'll read out the names of the people

who want to speak on this.

Councillor Matthew Walsh, Bookingshay Councillor,

Councillor Marie Penel, and Councillor Alan Livingston,

parish councillors, I'm sorry, Mr. Greg Smith MP,

and Paul Elmore and Sheila Williams as objectors.

And then we have the agent Oliver Bell.

So I'll start off with Councillor Matthew Walsh.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:31:27

Thank you, Chairman, thank you, members.

Good evening.

So this is 40 houses on a site outside the Longwick settlement boundary.

It's not allocated in the current local plan and it isn't one of the sites chosen through

the Longwick neighbourhood plan.

The officer's report accepts that that conflicts with the development plan.

But there is another important point now.

We have just been through the preparation of the new Buckinghamshire local plan.

More than 1400 sites were submitted and assessed as part of that process.

This site still hasn't been allocated.

Longwick hasn't avoided development.

The existing strategy provided for 300 homes in the parish

and the neighbourhood plan identified the sites

to accommodate that growth.

Nearly half of which of those houses were affordable.

In terms of heritage,

Sarah's Cottage and Old Orchard

are grade two listed buildings.

The council's own heritage officer

recognised the scheme after it was amended,

but her conclusion was that the changes

made only a marginal improvement and were not sufficient to overcome her

concerns. These aren't listed buildings where the setting is incidental they are

former farm workers cottages the council's assessment says the undeveloped

countryside makes a positive contribution to their significance. And

the language used by our heritage officer is pretty stark. Development here

would permanently and irrevocably change the Greenfield site, suburbanize the

of those listed buildings and divorce them

from the countryside, their occupants historically served.

The Heritage Assessment also says the proposal

does not preserve their setting,

does not comply with the relevant heritage policy,

and has not demonstrated the clear and convincing

justification required for that harm.

The Officer Report gives the impact

on those two listed buildings

substantial negative weight.

I accept there is a housing land supply agreement,

but I don't accept that housing shortfall

means every allocated field outside

of village settlement boundary becomes acceptable.

Longwick has taken significant growth.

This land wasn't allocated before,

it is not allocated now,

and the emerging local plan doesn't propose

further planned growth for the village.

Combined with the identified heritage arm

and the issues with access in terms of road,

For members that took the opportunity to be on the site visit, it is a very small gap.

You have not one house application that's been discussed, not the eight houses that's

been approved before, but 40 houses, 80 car movements day in, day out.

On that basis and the heritage, I ask you to refuse this application.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:34:12

Thank you.

We move on to cancer Mary panel

It's Alan Livingston here speaking on behalf of both of us. Okay

Public Speaker - 1:34:25

So thank you for giving our parish council that sorry just one minute. I've missed out one thing I needed to do

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:34:37

Sorry, we'll start again. Are there any questions for council Walsh for clarification?

Public Speaker - 1:34:41

Sorry, sorry, we'll start again over to you

Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving their parish council the chance to speak in opposition

to this application.

Firstly, both our neighbourhood plan and the Bucks local plan Reg 19 do not support this.

The proposal is beyond the settlement boundary, is contrary to the special strategy and we

already exceed our new home plan to 2033.

Following the imposition of large numbers in recent years, our village has doubled in

size which has had a very negative impact on our social structure and cohesion.

Further building in the short term will make matters completely unacceptable to both the

parish council and residents.

Secondly, the proposal states Thames Water have said no sewage or fur water assessment

was carried out and that is required before the proposal can proceed.

We understand from June 26, not the letter that we received in 2025, that Long Lake is

red flagged by Thames Water as we exceed capacity for the current infrastructure.

Tankers have had to pump sewage from the village on most days.

Thames Water have reiterated the infrastructure upgrades are required now, but there is no

money available and this must be taken into account. On the subject of infrastructure,

UK power networks have written to us that we need two additional 22 kilovolt lines to

supply the village and prevent regular power cuts that we endure. Indeed, this month alone

we received two additional power cuts. Water and electricity must be fundamental to our

these plans. Third, traffic through Long Wake on the Tame Road has increased dramatically

both in volume and speed in recent years with proposed traffic calming measures still pending.

Access to this main road will be from a single road which has pinch points that will result

in queues on the Tame Road as traffic attempts to enter and exit, not to mention the impact

this will have on emergency or refuse vehicles as they attempt to access.

This main road is already narrow and the proposal to narrow parts of it further are unacceptable.

Lastly, previous developments also promised improvement in transport links and infrastructure.

None have been provided despite our recent and repeated attempts.

Guidelines state healthcare provision should be available within a 15 -minute walk.

The closest to his proposal is in Princess Resborough 2 .1 miles away or a 41 minute walk away

This with a single point of entry and egress this proposal risks becoming isolated within the village with no opportunities

So for safe working or cycling we need more joined up. Thank you

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:37:47

Times up

So we move on to mr. Greg Smith MP

questions. Sorry I don't know what's happening today but is there any

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:38:03

questions for clarification? Councillor Collingwood. The Councillor talked about

Thames water about the fact that he said it was red flag but I've read the report

and the report said that they've come back to this okay so have you got

Public Speaker - 1:38:20

additional information? Your report stated a letter from I think it was June

or July 2025. We've got communications from July 26, a year later, that state that is

used to be an amber flag, it is now a red flag and we are basically having tankers tankering

sewage out of the village on an almost daily basis. In fact, some days there are more than

one tanker there so the residents are really fed up with this sewage problem

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:38:56

that we're dealing with in the village.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:39:02

Thank you, Karen. I assume you've responded to the local plan consultation and made clear that the sites have been outlined you're happy with.

Okay, and the other question is, there is a bus service in Longwick, is it reliable?

Public Speaker - 1:39:18

No, we have, I think the local bus, there is a bus on a Tuesday morning and coming back

on a Tuesday afternoon from Tame, there is also the local, you know, sort of a healing

bus that you can call, only goes to Princess Risborough and that basically I think is three

times a day, not really convenient for commuting.

And there is another bus that is supposed to go to the railway

station, but that's only, I believe, once

in each direction.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:39:53

So not a reliable bus service.

Any other questions?

No?

Then we'll move on to Mr. Greg Smith, MP.

Public Speaker - 1:40:06

Over to you.

Thank you very much. Having visited the site recently, I remain firmly against what is being proposed here.

This is a speculative application on land outside.

Excuse me, Mr. Smith, can you bring the microphone close to you so I've got indications from members they can't hear you.

And we'll restart it again. Thank you.

Is that better? Good.

Thank you.

Having visited the site myself recently,

I remain firmly against what is being proposed here.

This is a speculative application on land

outside the Longwick settlement boundary.

It is not in the existing local plan.

It is not in the Longwick neighbourhood plan.

And it's not even in the emerging Buckinghamshire plan

either.

And that matters because the whole purpose

of a plan led system is to decide where development

should go rather than allowing individual sites

to come forward simply because a developer

fancies a go at it.

Longwick has already taken considerable development.

We've heard it's doubled in size in recent years.

But having visited this particular site,

two issues stand out clearly to me.

Heritage and access.

On heritage, Sorrows Cottage and Old Orchard

are grade two listed buildings

immediately adjacent to the site.

The council's own heritage officer looked again

at the amended scheme and concluded

that the changes made only offer a marginal,

marginal improvement and were not sufficient

to overcome the concerns already raised.

These are former farm workers cottages

whose historic relationship with the surrounding countryside

is part of their significance.

The council's assessment says the undeveloped character

of this land makes a positive contribution to their setting.

Putting in a state of up to 40 homes behind these cottages

fundamentally changes it. The Heritage Officer describes the development as

permanently and irrevocably changing the character of the Greenfield site and

suburbanizing the setting of those listed buildings. Then there is access.

Having visited you can see immediately how constrained it is. The proposed route

has to pass through a narrow gap between existing properties and trees before

serving the whole development. Indeed the Highway Authority originally considered

the access unacceptable, raising concerns about its alignment, its design and the difficulties

created when larger vehicles entered and left the site.

I appreciate some very minor amendments have been made and highways have bizarrely withdrawn

their formal objection, but that does not somehow make the physical constraints, real

physical constraints somehow magically disappear.

This would still be creating the sole principle access for 40 homes to a very constrained

part of Tame Road, immediately alongside existing properties and close to those listed cottages.

This site was not chosen through the existing local plan, the neighbourhood plan or the

emerging local plan. Add to that the identified heritage harm and the very real concerns about

the nature of access on an already dangerous and fast moving road, I believe there are

strong reasons for members to reject this application. On sustainability, it's a 49

minute walk to the nearest train station much of it along a rural 60 mile per

hour road with no footpath and we've heard about sewage already being taken

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:43:29

away by road rejected. Thank you Mr. Smith. Are there any questions for MP?

No? Okay thank you. Then we move on to Mr. Paul Elmore. Thank you chair members. I

Public Speaker - 1:43:50

half of the grade two listed pair adjoining this site and I also speak on

behalf of Sarah's cottage. The council's heritage officer says the undeveloped

land contributes positively to the rural setting of these 17th century farm

workers cottages and that development and the access road would harm and

suburbanize that setting. Even after the amendments the heritage officer found

only marginal improvement and maintained her concerns. The land behind us was

orchards my house is called old orchards and the raw tying gates at the rear of

my property open toward that former orchard land.

The access road deserves particular attention.

It's the principal detailed matter before you now

and the heritage officer identifies the road,

increased vehicle movements and noise

as part of that heritage harm.

If members have not experienced that relationship

on the ground, I respectfully ask you to consider

a site visit before determining the application

to see its effects and heritage harm firsthand.

The August 2026 MPPF requires substantial weight

to conservation, clear and convincing justification for harm and says that any harm to a designated

heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight.

Finally, please remember the recent Anderton's Farm Appeal, also here on Tame Road.

It was a different scheme and I'm not suggesting it's a precedent, but that was an allocated

housing site and the Secretary of State's inspector still found that the harm to the

rural setting of nearby grade two listed buildings was not outweighed by the public benefits

of delivering housing.

I ask members to give Old Orchards and Sarah's Cottage the same careful consideration.

Thank you.

My name is Sheila Williams.

I live almost opposite the access road.

Despite your photo, traffic on the Tame Road has increased dramatically over the last three

years.

Turning onto it at peak times between 6 .30 and 9 in the morning or 3 to 6 .30 in the evening

is extremely difficult, crossing on foot almost impossible.

Forty houses will potentially mean 80 cars as we have no regular public transport.

The access road should run straight for 22 metres from the entrance. This is not the case,

particularly in the section by the house wall buttress on the right, closely followed by an angled garage on the left.

A refuse lorry requires three metres clearance from the wall.

The remaining 1 .8 metres is insufficient for another vehicle to pass,

thus forcing it to reverse when it may well queue cars behind it.

Large vehicles such as the large delivery vehicles, removal lorries, fire engines, etc. will also have this problem.

Then there is another reduction within seven metres ending in a single entry exit lane of 3 .2 metres with a

significant curve afterwards, so a bottleneck.

If a vehicle is waiting to turn right at the exit when a large vehicle is trying to turn in from Princess Risborough,

Visibility between drivers is restricted, which creates the potential to block one another, reverse or conflict close to the junction.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:46:49

Thank you.

Are there any questions from members? No? No? Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr Oliver Bell now, the agent.

Public Speaker - 1:47:02

Good evening members. I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant Horridge Strategic Land.

Horridge is part of the W .E. Black Group, one of Buckinghamshire's leading SME housebuilders.

This application seeks outline permission for up to 40 homes with only the principal

means of access for determination at this stage. The starting point here is the acute

need for housing, noting the council can only demonstrate a 1 .98 year housing land supply.

This scheme will deliver 40 much needed homes including 19 affordable dwellings representing

48 % of the development.

The scheme would also provide accessible and adaptable housing including wheelchair user

dwellings.

Officers rightly attribute substantial positive weight to each of these benefits in line with

national policy.

As you've heard, the application must now be determined under the August 2026 MPPF.

Policy S5 establishes a clear and strongly positive test

for development outside settlements

where it addresses an evidenced unmet need.

Such developments should be approved

unless its benefits are substantially outweighed

by adverse effects,

provided it is physically well related to a settlement

and can be accommodated having regard to infrastructure.

Those requirements are plainly met here.

The site directly adjoins Longwick,

an established tier four service village.

It is physically well related to existing development and can accommodate 40 homes as

a contextually appropriate gross density of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare.

Your officers therefore rightly agree that policy S5 is engaged and the development is

acceptable in principle.

Importantly, this site is not in the Greenbelt nor within the children's national landscape

or for that matter any designated landscape.

Conversely, large parts of Buckinghamshire are subject to significant greenbelt and landscape

constraints.

If the council is to meet its housing needs, appropriate unconstrained sites such as this

adjoining existing settlements must make a meaningful contribution.

The technical evidence is equally clear.

The highway authority raises no objection, excepting the access proposals are suitable

and safe.

The LLFA and other key stakeholders raise no objection.

them. Financial contributions will be secured towards primary education, healthcare and

improved local bus services. The site is visually contained and officers conclude that it will

cause no unacceptable landscape harm. We agree. There is acknowledged low -level harm to the

setting of two listed cottages. While substantial weight is afforded to this in line with the

MPPA, that weight is attributed to a harm at the lowest end of the scale. Furthermore,

It is clearly outweighed by the substantial public benefits identified by your officers.

The application is therefore precisely the kind of development contemplated by

policy S5. Much -needed housing including significant affordable provision on a

suitable site well related to the existing settlement.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:50:03

Thank you. Any questions?

Councillor Como Paris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:50:08

Thank you very much Chairman.

We've heard one or two people mention the issue of access.

Will the road provision be sufficient to be adopted

by the council at a later date?

Public Speaker - 1:50:23

The road is to be built to adoptable standards,

whether or not the highway authority adopt it,

that would be a matter at a later stage.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:50:32

Any other questions, members?

No, Councillor Hazel.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:50:42

Sorry, Councillor Aht.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd just like to ask,

so if there's going to be 40 dwellings on the site,

and one of the things we're being asked to look at

in terms of conditions is the 48 % of the dwellings

for onsite affordable housing.

So you would be saying you could deliver just under half of those

houses as affordable provision?

Public Speaker - 1:51:13

Yes that's correct and that would be a

condition or an obligation of the permission if you were to resolve to

grant permission today.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:51:23

Any other questions?

No?

Then I'll move on to opening the debate. I used to have a technical time here as you

know. I've done that away with that. Now we just go into the debate where you can ask

those technical questions there as well. So I'm going to ask the two site visit members

Councillor Mike West and Councillor Clive Harris, if you want to go first.

Over to you, Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:52:03

Sorry.

My primary consideration was the access.

It goes very close to the neighbouring buildings.

But I think what's more important is it's the second site of succession that's been brought to this committee.

And to my mind, it's outside the recommended building area.

It doesn't represent the local plan, it doesn't represent the neighbourhood plan.

And it would appear that our offices have greater regard for satisfying the five year land development rather,

and affordable housing than waiting for our own

evolving development plan, which is already by the mention of,

I forgot your surname, Matt, by Matt's admission,

that we'll be offering affordable housing as well as housing

within the main area of the village.

The other site was much closer to the centre.

We've heard that there is little in the way of any public transport that can be relied upon.

So to have this outlying site un -serviced with only a village shop,

which is probably the best post office in the area, but that aside, to service those people,

I think it's just wrong and I think that the weight that's being applied to the five -year

provision of land and the affordable housing is far too great.

And I would rather wait until we hear back whether the other side has gone to appeal

so we can hear what the view of the inspector is when it comes down to how much weight should

be applied to those two aspects when they go outside of what the what is

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:54:05

planned and accepted as a reasonable planning thank you

Cllr Michael West - 1:54:11

council West Thank You chair can I start by saying the traffic argument I don't

completely buy you refer to the chain road as a fast dangerous road but the

Access to this particular site is within the 30 limit.

And I feel that the only reason it's a fast, dangerous road

is because drivers are not sticking to the 30 limit.

The visibility on the Tame Road is superb, it's superb.

Having said that, the problems with the rest

of the infrastructure, I think are significant.

The shortage in electricity supply,

the failure to be able to cope with sewage adequately,

is significant.

The problems with public transport,

I know that Buckinghamshire Council are trying to address

and trying to address the shortage of decent bus services.

But we're not there yet.

The only problem I have really with this development

is the same problem that we had with the 57 houses

on the other side of the road.

I believe that development in villages

should be locally led.

Longwick has done everything it can

to put forward a neighbourhood plan

which was then accepted by Buckinghamshire Council

and adopted by them.

And unfortunately, Longwick seems to be a subject

of continued speculative development, right?

And I think if the arguments against the houses on the other side of the road recently,

those arguments actually still hold today regarding these 40 houses.

So I think we've got to think long and hard before approving this development.

What weight do you actually give to the Longwick neighbourhood plan?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:56:21

Any other members?

Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 1:56:26

Thank you.

Yes, it was only recently we dealt with

a planning application on the other side of the road.

And we were discussing then how there wasn't,

there wasn't a way to say that Thames Water

was saying everything was fine.

There wasn't a way for us to say no, it's not.

And that's a difficulty because what we're hearing

from residences and what we're hearing from Thames Water.

And I can totally see what a concern that is

when you get conflicting stuff coming through.

And also with this one, especially as there's

a substantial weight being given to heritage assets

and hearing from people talk about how actually

it's the whole parcel of land, it's an important part of it,

it's not just those houses.

It does seem to be a more serious case than the other one we discussed.

I am really impressed with the lack of affordable housing that we have,

that so much is being given to affordable housing.

And I do think that's sort of a really important thing to consider,

because we do have a massive deficit on affordable housing.

But I do feel, like other people have mentioned,

that Longweek's really getting it in the neck.

And each one we discuss is only another 40,

it's only another 40.

We're actually pushing it over its limit.

And so I have full sympathy, and I have a,

and I am worried that we're gonna have to go for the,

well there isn't enough housing till it's balanced, sorry.

But I really do feel like it's really getting

to breaking point, and I know that it's a legal case

of yes or no with these things.

But I really do feel that, you know,

another one comes up, we've got to say the same thing.

Another one comes up, we've got to say the same thing.

If there's anything I could do to think of a proper

material reason to turn this down,

but then again, I'm not looking to turn it down,

but if there was one and we wanted to turn it down,

the heritage assets to me is important.

It's also, to be frank, what can we do about Thames Water

when we're hearing about things being pumped out

every single day?

Is there a way to refer this back to Thames Water

for a more recent study?

I don't know.

But they are really big concerns.

But I will say we do need more affordable housing.

And this did look like it offered quite a lot.

But maybe, you know, Longwick's really,

I don't know if the infrastructure will cope.

If there's anything we can bring up materially

to say that this can't work,

that outweighs the tilted balance, then fine.

Otherwise I think we're gonna really be pushing it.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:59:14

Any other members would like to,

oh Councillor Collingwood, sorry, I forgot.

It's no problem, Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:59:24

I actually did go to the site as well today.

I did a total of bucks on it today.

There was one slide, the Google Maps slide, I thought was quite interesting.

So I can't know if we can go back to that one where it showed us, in context with the

wider part of Longwick.

That one there, yeah, that one there.

So my concern with this one, because if I remember rightly, I think it was Walker Road

the Walkers Road opposite is the bit on the other side of the road.

It's almost like a carbon copy of that already.

My concern will be the inspector will give it anyway.

So they're actually just mirroring what we already got.

But I think the previous one for 57 broke the boundary

and broke the fields that then meant you went away from the long way

call together, even though it was more central,

it actually went away and broke the actual line of on that left hand side.

This is a line of housing, if you see what I mean.

and then there's a set of fields that the one on 57 privacy went way away away away from that and went basically

Went full urban sprawl

Don't like the access so I'm curious. I don't know if you have the other officers with us. I've looked at page 47. I

Hear what the

Objections said about refuse is going to be a nightmare

Ambulance is gonna be a nightmare

accessibility in our best I don't know in terms the

planning of the highways officers whether that is acceptable because you've got one

small pavement on one side and then you've got 4 .8 metres supposedly

But the kink is definitely not 4 .8 metres

And if you've got the big old refuse truck going in there, there's no one's coming back out again, right?

Get the heritage bit, but I don't know what sort of weight that will hold

But I think sustainability piece, which is policy DM2, is quite telling, 0 .5, 0 .30, where

it basically says, requires high quality, full accessibilities.

When you read the 528, 529, and 530 together, you just sit there going, this is not sustainable.

Unless you've got a car, you're not going anywhere, pretty much.

You've got one on a Tuesday, one on a Thursday, might get you to 10 if you're lucky.

One is only morning or evening if lucky, no daytime service.

you know that's not sustainable transport.

If you're in Risborough you can walk to the train station,

that's sustainable transport.

This is not a sustainable transport location.

My query really is whether or not S5 trumps everything.

Because I'm a bit like a council here,

I don't like this one either.

And I think it's a bit like a quarter of a pint pot.

But I can see when you look at that image,

what I expect it might give it anyway.

because the line of the red edge is no further out than the other part of the

Village and the rest of it and you've got the other one next doors already been given

Can the highways team tell us if that is acceptable because I not convinced that that

Diagram at the top of page 47 that doesn't look acceptable to me

And be

Can DM to and heritage combined give you enough reasons as to why?

you then could have enough to substantiate reasons for refusal if that

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:02:49

makes sense. So sorry to be rambling but I'm trying to articulate how you get

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:02:54

there to if you can get a refusal how you get to a refusal that's going to

stand up and not just be overruled by the Inspector.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:03:01

Thank you before I go to any other member I think the officers want to come

back on some of the questions.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:03:24

Can I just raise a point?

Cllr Michael West - 2:03:26

Councillor Colle, would you refer to the red line at the back?

You're right, the development on the other side of the road did extend into Greenfield

basically and created a new building line.

This is slightly confusing because on the site visit,

we couldn't actually determine what the construction work

was on the southern boundary, would it be?

Right, it is not built up, it's, yes, it's all rubbish.

So it's not really, it doesn't actually sit within

two building lines right it would be the last settlement development on that side

of the road. I took it to be that the southern bit was the technically the bit

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:04:20

that was the eighth of being approved that they were just clearing the land is

how I read it but I could be totally wrong maybe I'll just clarify for us.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:04:29

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:04:33

So if I just touch on that final point raised there, this area here is where permission

was granted earlier this year, actually outline planning permission was granted for eight

houses.

So that's what's shown in the context plan that they've submitted and also some of the

Trevor Faulkner - 2:09:10

Just to elaborate on the Thames Water.

Within the report there are conditions recommended that give certain safeguards in terms of our

water capacity.

There will be a need for those works and a strategy to be agreed with Thames Water as

part of any works and no occupation until that is actually

meant as a kind of grand condition.

They've got to meet those needs before any occupations

on the site.

We've talked about bus contributions as part of the

application.

There will be contributions towards education towards a

primary school that will amount to circa about 345 ,000

towards the local primary school.

In terms of healthcare, to meet the needs

of the additional patients,

there'll be a need of about 37 ,000 contributions.

We've talked about the bus services,

obviously offering another three hours

of extra services per day as part of that kind

of local rover service in the Risborough area.

And that will be tied up within a section 106 agreement.

I think that really covers everything I wanted to say.

Just in terms of the highways, I think the specific points, there were concerns originally

as part of the original application raised by our highway colleagues.

There were then negotiations through the life of the application and the highways team are

now satisfied with the access arrangements both in terms of its configuration and in

in terms of the access onto Tame Road itself,

in terms of both visibility displays

and the alignment of that to allow for access.

There is some change to the configuration

to widen the footpaths in that area as well

as part of those works.

Just in terms of the heritage,

it's a little bit like Greenbelt in many respects

where you talk about substantial harm.

The starting point very much with Greenbelt where it's inappropriate development

It it retains that status of substantial

likewise with heritage the starting point is to give substantial weight to

Harm to heritage assets and then in terms of when specialists to our heritage team look at it

They actually then weigh that up in terms of scale of harm and they are saying it is at the lower end of that scale

So why it is given substantial weight,

it would be at the lower end of that scale.

And that obviously needs to be weighed up

against the wider benefits of the scheme.

And which in this case we are saying

is because of the five year housing land supply issues

in terms of both housing need more generally

and particularly also with regard to affordable housing.

We are getting 19 affordable housing units

as part of this development,

of which 80 % will be either affordable or social rent.

So that is obviously a substantial benefit

of this development as well.

That's all I have to say.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:12:17

Thank you, I've got a question.

Arthur Hewitt.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:12:22

Thank you and thank you for the extra information.

This might be a completely daft question,

but you're gonna answer it anyway.

More information I have in my head better.

When there's like a couple of applications of substantial amounts of housing appearing

very close to each other, when we're looking at an application based on how the infrastructure

is suitable or if there's enough school provision or is the transport okay or things like that,

are those reports coming back based on what's currently there or do they take into account

stuff that is about to be built?

because I'm just concerned if we're saying, you know, it's only a primary school issue, it's only a

Shock bus extra issue, but actually that's in a singular bit that doesn't take into account

We've already just agreed an extra, you know, 50 houses down the road. There's another one coming up shortly. Oh

I'd just like to know how we take that into account when we're saying that

It's not going to affect things too much

whether it's being taken on its own or with the wider developments going on at once because

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:13:34

we've had two very close together. Thank you.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:13:39

Thank you, Councillor. Each application is on its own merit. So when we consider the

infrastructure requirements, it will be from this specific development. And obviously when

we look at other schemes that have been approved elsewhere in Longwick, again, they would have

looked on their merits to meet that particular needs.

So for example, education will calculate the child yield from this particular development

and give us what the actual needs of this particular site would have and what contribution

that would need to meet those particular child's needs in local primary schools, for example,

or secondary school.

Likewise with the bus service, that's slightly different because I think they are looking

that that's that wider local bus service and it's appalling of resources from when schemes

come forward they would actually pay into that to help deliver those additional services

which this scheme would have to do.

And likewise with healthcare what they do the ICB is look at the number of dwellings,

what the population growth would be from that development and obviously what the requirements

are within the local healthcare surgeries and there's a kind of form

that they apply to make sure those particular needs from this development

are actually that money is put in to make sure that that can be delivered for

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:15:02

that new that additional community. So sorry just to just just to get the

answer that you sort of 90 % gave me with with say like for example a GP

surgery if it's like you're gonna get a hundred extra people is that alright and

they go we could probably do that within the realms of our building.

Another application comes in two weeks later.

Can you take 100 people?

Yes, we can do that within the realms of our building.

If you said like you've got 100 more already coming your way, you've got an extra 100,

they might go oh shoot, we need another building.

So that's what I'm asking.

When they all jump up at once, is it accumulatively looked at or is it just yeah, we could do

five more but they're saying the same thing to every person not seeing the

bigger effect.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:15:50

So for example with your example of the NHS a formula is used to work out how

many extra patients there may be and a reasonable sum of money but we can't

just just accept that and I don't think the developer would just pay that money

unless there were projects identified. So in this instance the ICB have said a lot

of the local surgeries are that this site is within catchment for are at

capacity or already over capacity even though it you know they're

demonstrated online it says that they are still accepting new patients but

what they have done is they've identified several projects for how they

can take on extra capacity so that isn't just necessarily capacity from from this

site but capacity from other developments and obviously the the

amount of the amount of extra patients will will determine how you know what

projects they go ahead with but they have they have noted several projects

that they could do to deal with increased capacity. The bus is a bit

different in that we haven't split it up and said this is how much we'll need for busses

and we basically said all of that needs to come from this one development in order for

it to actually be deliverable.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:17:21

Thank you.

May I remind members we are being webcast so fruitful language that's I

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:17:38

didn't hear that so that's fine. Councillor Harris. Thank you very much

following over my colleague I think that this this development of the report just

reflects just how badly served we are within the area and you can use all the

calculations in the world. They're only offering a certain amount of money in order to help

with the situation. But that's just a drop in the ocean. And so it's not going to get

us a new doctor's surgery or anything of that nature. It wouldn't even cover the footings.

So that's great. But to my mind, I think that we've got a situation here. You very kindly

showed us one of the planning things and you had it all outlined in yellow. But you omitted

B at the end which said where sites had already been identified. Now we've got a village here

with a neighbourhood plan, we've got an upcoming development plan and I will bet you a pound

of penny that within that development plan there are already sites that have been identified.

So why didn't you highlight that for us and explain to us that where sites are already

identified then sites of this nature shouldn't be considered because I think that's a little

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:18:48

misleading in my mind.

Sorry, my interpretation of that is,

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:18:55

I think slightly different to yours.

So if we just pop to it.

So I think you're talking about the footnote,

footnote 28 is it?

So this says, where a development proposal

is located outside a settlement and separated

from the existing built up area.

Oh, hang on, sorry.

Is it not the same one?

So there's two there.

There's the top one, 27, which says C Annex D.

And then 28 says, where development poses

is okay to outside a settlement,

and separated from the existing built up area

by virtue of being beyond the outside edge

of an allocated site that has yet to be fully developed,

consideration should be given to whether the proposal

is in a suitable location

should the allocated development not proceed.

So that's if it was beyond,

say you had an allocation and you were,

and it was beyond the allocation

and you were relying on the allocation

to say it was close to the settlement.

Oh, okay. Oh, sorry. That's not right. It says B. All right. Okay. So it says, sorry.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:20:23

For the sake of those tuned in to listen to this, for those, there are sites already identified

that take up sufficient land here that we don't have to consider this one. And so to

To my mind, I would say we've already got allocated sites.

Whether, and we were talking about taking 300 houses

on this particular location, is my understanding,

have been allotted to,

to allocate rather to Longwick.

So if we have the,

we have to question how much weight

the neighbourhood plan has,

and you're saying we have to apply a little weight to it,

not a lot,

and also in terms of the emerging plan which is daily getting more should be

taken and given more weight as each day goes by then I feel that this we're at a

situation now we're realistically beyond under that to my mind is the more

important of the and should have more weight applied to that policy than what

you're suggesting

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:21:33

Can I go to my legal representative?

Thank you, Chairman.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:21:37

Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:21:39

I think the point here is that A and B are required to be met in order, so if I read

it all out, for development proposals involving the provision of housing, the benefits of

approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects where a

proposal would conflict with the neighbourhood plan,

provided the following apply, and they both have to apply.

So firstly, the neighbourhood plan

became part of the development plan five years or less

before the date on which the decision is made,

and that's the point that it's not.

It's more than five years old.

And the neighbourhood plan contains allocations

to meet its identified housing requirement.

So because it doesn't meet both of those criteria,

it doesn't substantially outweigh the benefits of housing.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:22:25

It doesn't mean that we don't apply any weight to it though.

Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:22:30

It doesn't mean you apply no weight

to the neighbourhood plan,

but it does mean that you have to look at the benefits

of the provision of housing in a situation

where we have less than five -year housing land supply.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:22:47

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:22:51

And let's clarify, how old is the neighbourhood plan?

So is it like five years five months old?

Or is it six seven eight nine? Just just something sort of in terms of context of how old is the neighbourhood plan?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:23:06

Compared to the five year we have to have a family's actions

Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:23:16

I think the point is that that's a cut off. It's not oh, it's just over five years. That is the policy

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:23:20

Well, I get it's just over five years, but if it is five years, two months, that's a bit harsh, right?

But if it's seven years, then it's clearly been gone, right? That's what I was trying to get to.

So I don't know the number, I don't genuinely know what the number is.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:23:34

Mrs. Crotty, I'll come back to you.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:23:40

I'll come back. I think it's just relative, or it is explicit, unfortunately. We've obviously got

this new MPPF and it is quite clear there in terms of its definition. If the

plan is five years or less before the date of the decision, which it is, it's

more than eight years old now, we can only give it limited weight. So in terms

of both the number of units, which was around 300 in that document, plus the

development boundaries which are within that document again, we can only give

them limited weight. We are actually in this world of this new national plan and

policy framework so if it was to go to appeal that would be quite clear. That

would be the first question how old is the neighbourhood plan? It's more than five

years and similarly I think there was some comment about the emerging local

plan as well. I think it's a case given we're still at a relatively early stage

again in terms of if this was to go to appeal if you were looking to give

significant weight to that. Again, within further elsewhere in the MPPF it's quite

clear the weight that can actually be given to that at this stage in its plan

making will be again limited.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:24:53

Councillor Collingwood, I've got you on the list so would you like to still

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:25:01

speak or... yeah over to you then.

The eight years helps in terms of that

particular point for me to yeah so therefore it was eight years old when it

was made then it's probably a 10 year old plan,

therefore I get the point that doesn't really apply.

My curiosity is, when we talk about heritage assets

being substantial weight, and I understand

that they're just gonna give us 100 ,000

which gives you three hours of busses,

to me that isn't sufficient to make it sustainable

if that makes sense.

Three hour busses is like, well, great, you know.

One every, so nine in the morning, 12, three, six,

whatever it might be, you know, it's not going to be very often, if that makes sense.

So can you build an argument that says because of the heritage assets issue and sustainability

issue and the other bits there, you can then say actually that overrides S5, are we just

saying S5 is sacrosanct and basically S5 just says tough.

In essence, the government's just saying we don't care.

what the local residents want, the government just saying we don't care, new MPPF just says

S -5 rules and that's how it plays.

So just give me that clarity of can we build an argument that says actually cumulatively

the various things that are wrong with this thing we don't like about it, is it enough

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:26:24

then to tip the balance away over S -5 that's what I'm trying to get to?

Trevor Faulkner - 2:26:30

Well I believe it's a really difficult balance, the strike isn't it?

We know that Longwick sits at the lower end of the scale

in terms of it being a tier four settlement,

in terms of it's limited facilities.

But without the growth, it's never obviously going to change

in that regard, so it's chicken and egg really.

And obviously what's being provided as part of

this development will meet the needs

of this particular development.

I'm not saying it will go as far to provide

half hourly service in and out of Longwick.

But because of the size of the settlement,

any bus company will probably not operate a service through there, but this money would

actually go into more of that community network. There is service or shuttle service rather

than the wider bus operators and there will be an improvement in the service. It's obviously

extra three hours of service per day, so it's significantly better than where we are now

in terms of that service. And it is obviously Washington space in terms of the contributions

to the other elements we've talked about.

It is a very fine balance.

But it is, in terms of the MPPF and that policy S5,

it does sit on the edge of this settlement.

There is a significant or substantial housing need

in this particular district, borough I should say,

or county now.

And also in terms of affordable housing,

so they kind of almost separated,

than a substantial need in both regards.

And unfortunately, because the new MPPF,

we can really only give limited weight

both to the emerging local plan,

which will, hopefully over time,

meet the needs of Buckinghamshire.

But unfortunately, the neighbourhood plan,

which obviously it was adopted for the right reasons,

it came forward to meet the needs of the community.

In terms of the plan period,

it is wider than that five -year period we're alluding to. It goes to 2033 but

unfortunately it's quite clear in the national policy framework. Napier plans

that obviously are more than five years old will only now be given limited weight.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:28:44

Thank you. Councillor Hewitt, I think the other thing is after you I think we've

draw a line and then we have to come to some kind of a response.

Thank you.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 2:28:58

Yeah, I'd just like to say that as much as if I was a resident, I'd probably be here

speaking about this as well.

I've sat here and we've had to agree applications like this because of the wait.

And I know that like heritage -wise, if that was enough to like turn this over, fine, but

but I don't believe that it's looking like it is.

And I think I'm also sort of disappointed

that it's only primary school provision taken in

because I don't know if a capacity review

was done for second secondaries,

but because there's already,

Princess Risbrough is already feeding external areas

as secondary school and I don't know

what the provision is gonna be like for local people

and the impact of that around that area.

But I hate to say this, but I think we've sat here

and agreed with things before because of tilted balance

and we'd all like to strangle tilted balance.

But I don't see what we can pull out of a hat here.

And it's not through choice, it's just through reality,

I think.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:30:08

Mrs. Crotty wants to come up.

I just wanted to come back on the comment about the secondary schools.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:30:19

Obviously we do get a seal from development as well and a seal goes towards secondary

school provision.

That's great.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:30:29

So the proposal is in front of you.

I'll be looking for a proposal and second that if not if there's a refusal you'll have

to put it up.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:30:48

I was waiting for my lonely friend to my left to come up with some magic

suggestions because I'm like Councillor Heaver, I'm struggling to work out how I

can get past S5 basically. I'm not sure I can build a good enough case at the

moment to overturn it so unless he can imagine he's done something but it's

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:31:06

going to magically change it I can't see how we're going to do that.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:31:10

I'd like to refer back to the decision we made on the across the road and add to that

unsustainable heritage impact lack of education educational provision and outside settlement

boundary.

But he doesn't want voice back.

Unsustainable heritage impact, lack of NHS and educational provision and outside the settlement boundary added to the reasons we gave on the property across the road which basically was a similar situation.

Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:32:04

I would have to say that in terms of the NHS and the education provision, that's going

to be dealt with by Section 106 agreements, so if you were looking to refuse, I would

hold up on on any sort of appeal. In terms of again of the unsustainable

location again there's provision for the busses but I'll let Mrs Crotty come in with.

Mrs Emma Crotty - 2:32:27

If we can give us a few seconds.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:33:20

What we've got in front of us, we've got the wording of the previous refusal, so if I was

just to read out the first part of that.

It was all embraced in one reason.

So it covered both the proposed development by reason of its location outside of the divine

and settlement area, settlement boundary of Longwick

would result in an unplanned expansion

of the built development into the countryside

on land not allocated for residential development.

The proposal would undermine the planned approach

to growth established in the Wickham District Local Plan

and the Longwick -Kilner Neighbourhood Plan.

And then it said in the absence

of a satisfactory completed legal agreement,

which we haven't got at this stage,

there's various applications in terms of affordable housing,

primary education, healthcare, public transport,

travel plan monitoring and future management

and maintenance of on -site, amenity space and SUDS.

And then it says, not stand in the shop

for in the five -year housing land supply

and including its contribution towards housing delivery,

the harms arising from the development would significantly

and the stomp does Monts play out way its benefits and then it goes into the

policies beyond that there's nothing there in terms of heritage although

there was obviously a heritage refusal and the scheme to the north

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:35:10

I'll just say if we can add the heritage to it then.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:35:15

Yeah we'll just come on and refer to the heritage as well if that's what the recommendation

ultimately ends up being.

Okay.

Yes, the heritage reason, I'll just summarise it, but the proposed development, our reason

of the scale and extent of built development and associated vehicle activity in close proximity

to the heritage assets would fail to preserve the setting of the grade two listed, Sierras,

cottage and grade three listed old orchard.

The development would result in low level harm

to the significance of these designated heritage assets

for the erosion of their rules setting

and historic relationship with surrounding landscape

which should be afforded substantial weight

in accordance with the MPPF 2026.

There's a little bit more in terms of the policies

beyond that but that's the gist of it.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:36:12

Thank you very much for your assistance.

I'd like to put it as spoken.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:36:16

The only bit, sir, just wouldn't want to end there, though,

but I would just obviously caution,

particularly with regard, again,

to the defined settlement boundaries, as I said,

in terms of the neighbourhood plan.

That really is the only document

that defines the settlement boundaries.

The weight that can actually be given

to that settlement boundary within that document is limited.

So at an appeal, we then end up in the MPPF arguments

in terms of settlement development outside of the settlement area, so you really do need

to weigh that up in the ballots.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:36:52

I think going forward it's likely we'll have far less committees and I think a few of these

boundaries need to be tested at appeal in order to give a clear indication of what's

happening because as our role is eradicated, so I think that we need to have some things

on the chit that say what we've done and how we feel,

because they go, well, I won't go to the political side

of it, but you know what I mean.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:37:22

Chairman, I think by the sound of it,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:37:29

Councillor Harris has come up with a formal proposal,

and then I'll formally second that,

because actually, they're the cause

of what we talked about last time,

but then we've had to get in here,

so that's on top of that.

I think that is really a good test about which outweighs it does s5 outweigh it or do actually be saying on balance

like we did last time that actually

The relevant policies because it's outside of the boundary

Outway that issue so I think we are dear judgement. So I'm happy second

I'm just gonna say I mean

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:38:06

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:38:08

Justice, we're in a grey area as far as great. Great land is considered

We're in a grey area as far as these sort of decisions are and it's no disrespect to the officers and what weight they've applied

It's just that we need to be satisfied that we are doing the best for our residents

And making sure that we preserve Buckinghamshire as it is

So much I think the basis for refusal

Based on the previous receptor refuse we have to let previous application plus the heritage assets

is a layman's summary, if that makes sense,

that Council, as is proposing, I'm seconding formally.

We would then put to a vote, Chairman.

If you can give us one second.

bring another plan up because I think it is quite important that we obviously

consider both sites.

Trevor Faulkner - 2:40:17

Yes so if we look at the plan before us you'll recall the site we looked at,

you looked at in July. There is a difference in in the nature of that

because obviously it's pushing development out into the open countryside.

It's obviously pushing it out a lot further into that particular, I guess

you're talking about the northeast direction aren't you, of Longwick.

Whereas this particular site, well one we've got development has already been

approved immediately to the north. Yes that hasn't been built out but it has been

approved. We do have development to the south of this as well that actually

pushes development further towards the railway line as well so to actually say

encroaches into the open countryside there is a differentiation between the

two sites that is obviously causing kind of a dog layout leg out into the the

wider countryside on the other side of the road whereas this one doesn't do

that in quite the same way yes there is the land that is open immediately to the

south of it but beyond that the development envelope does go further out

towards the railway line so in terms of considering that's a planning appeal we

would also have to weigh that up in the balance as well. The only other final

point I make when you made that particular decision in July the key

point is the new MPPF didn't come into effect until August so we are moved on

from that particular decision as well in terms of particularly in terms of the

to the neighbourhood plan.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:42:07

Councillor Harris, do you wanna amend your proposal?

Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:42:09

First, I'm still happy to go ahead on that basis.

As I say, these policies have got to be tested.

They haven't been tested.

And as they're gonna be less and less committees

going forward, then as much as we can get tested,

the better, frankly.

This is for the sake of the residents

as much as anyone else.

because these exceeding the settlement plans

causes greater problems than actually development within,

which is why I say the already identified sites

within Longwick, we've got a willing parish

that understand the need for development.

No one's shying away from the affordable housing,

no one's shying away from the need for housing,

but they're all shying away from just making the villages

bigger for the sake of making them bigger.

I think that's what needs to be tested.

But thank you very much for your help.

Can I say something?

What I might want to say is just take the wording

about the open countryside,

because the last one went out in the open countryside,

because it literally went out away

from the whole Longwick bit.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:43:12

So therefore, sorry.

Rural landscape.

Rural landscape, yeah.

Rural landscape rather than open countryside.

I think if you phrase, you just put those two phrases,

I think then we can stick with what we've got

in terms of a proposal in the second.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:43:38

So we've got a proposal in Councillor Harris and a seconder in Councillor Collingwood.

With a show of hands, all in favour of the proposal, please.

To refuse.

Oh, sorry, Councillor Hinslade, because you left the meeting, you can't vote.

Sorry. Again, show of hands, please.

No, no, this one, two, three, four, five.

Sorry. Did you have your hand up? Yes.

Those against abstentions

to abstention. So it's carried for refusal. Thank you.

I propose a five to 10 minutes comfort break.

Five would be good. Thank you.

5 25/06402/OUT - OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road, Longwick

Chairman, can we keep it like half or four metre eight.

6 PL/25/3044/FA - Grymsdyke Farm, Main Road, Lacey Green HP27 0RB

044 stroke FA Grooms Lake Farm Main Road.

I'd hand over to Mrs Jenny Ihan to take over.

Thank you, Chairman.

Ms. Jenny Ion - 2:44:46

So this application is for a change of use to a light industrial use,

that is use class EG2.

I think it's three.

and external alterations to existing buildings.

I would draw your attention to the update.

There are adjustments to conditions

that have been put forward in the update.

And they don't change the substance

of most of the conditions, only the wording,

but there also is an extra condition at the end.

So this application site is at the edge

of the village of Lacey Green,

and it's within the Greenbelt

and within the Chilterns National Landscape.

So permission is sought for this change

of use to light industrial use and the change to the appearance of the

buildings. Much of the work to repair and refurbish the buildings has already

taken place. The buildings were originally agricultural buildings which

have had a series of permissions for a change of use to general B1 use and B1

office use in the early 2000s which were not implemented followed by a change

of use to offices and developing base for a car leasing business in 2008. As I say

the majority of the works exterior of the building have taken place and they

include replacement of external cladding, replacements of some of the roof

cladding of two of the three buildings and the introduction of roller shutter

doors and the insertion of glazed personnel doors. The site would use the

existing shared access from main road and parking for cars and delivery

vehicles will be provided on the existing areas of hard standing at the

rear of the site. The proposal also includes the erection of two metre high

mesh fencing to the north and east of the site.

If we have the plans, you can see the location plan there

before you.

So you can see the access from the main road

through to the buildings to the south.

Next plan, please.

So this is what's known as Barn 1 on the drawings.

You can see it's the twin gabled building there

with the roller shutter doors.

And to the right, you can see one of the other buildings.

Next slide, please.

That is barn 2 which is set at 90 degrees to barn 1.

This is the proposed site layout.

You can see on there the green line represents the position of the mesh fencing and you can

see the parking space is laid out also at the rear of the site.

If we go through to the photographs, this is a view taken from the access into the site.

You can see the shared access there with entrances to the right to other properties.

you can see the nursery building and also the barns ahead of you.

Next slide please.

So this is a view from the access of the exit onto the main road,

that is looking left and the next slide is looking to the right,

which is to the south.

Next slide please.

So this is a closer in view of the buildings,

again you can see the nursery building on the left and then you can see the

the grey clad buildings to the right are the buildings that are subject of this application.

Next please. So that is a closer in picture of about barn one on the left

and barn two on the right. Next one. So this is what the buildings look like at

the beginning of the application process. Work had just started on site at that

point and you can see the state of the cladding of the buildings at that time.

Next slide please. So this is also looking at the front of building one and

you can see the nursery building to the left

and some of the fencing would divide the space

between the two buildings.

Next slide, please.

So that is the front of Barn 2.

Next one.

And that is also Barn 2.

Next one.

So this is looking down the side of Barn 2.

You can see the vehicular access

around to the back of the site is on the right there

and some of the mesh fencing has already gone up.

You can see in the picture there.

That is looking back and that was again some months ago you can see the condition of the

building prior to the work being carried out.

That's a similar view which shows it as it is now.

So that was the rear of the building, this work had begun.

The next one shows as they are now.

You can see some of the hard standing to the rear.

That shows the back of Barn 2.

That is the rear barn adjacent to Barn 1.

It didn't have a number on the plans but we can call it either the rear barn or Barn 3 if you like.

That is the gap between Barn 2 to the left and Barn 3 and Barn 1 on the right.

That's the hard standing area which would be proposed to be used for parking.

and that shows you the stable building at the back which has been

converted to a dwelling and the track goes round to the rear of that building

accesses agricultural land further round. That again shows you the

area to the rear of the site and some of the fencing. That is the back of

barn one and the last one is again the back of barn one and again you can see

the nursery building next door. So the key issues for you to consider are set

out in the report on pages 99 to 106 and they are principally the principle of

reuse of the existing buildings, issues to do with access and parking and the

impact on the amenity of the surrounding area and surrounding properties. So the

application is recommended for permission subject to conditions as

set out in the report on pages 106 to 111 and as amended by the update that

you've been given this evening. Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:50:38

Thank you, Jenny. We have public speaking on this item who we

will hear from shortly. Please note I've used my discretion as chairman

to allow there be his own slot. So we have a written statement from Councillor

Robert Carrington and Councillor O 'Day. We have Councillor Graham Pitt from Lacie Green

and parish council, Mr. Greg Smith MP,

Nick Sonney for objectors, Sam Tiffin from the agents.

So I'll start off with the written submission

from Councillor Carrington and Councillor O 'Day.

Mr Leslie Ashton - 2:51:14

Thank you, chairman.

So I'll start with the statement from Councillor Carrington.

Thank you to the committee for hearing my statement

as a local ward Councillor for Ridgeway West,

which Lacy Green is a part of. As raised by a number of comments during the planning process,

including by Lacy Green Parish Council, there are a number of concerns regarding this application.

Work on the site seems to have commenced prior to planning approval. Some very large lorries have

been entering and exiting the site with a great degree of difficulty due to the narrow entrance

causing major road hold -ups. My understanding is that there is an enforcement case on this.

The major concern is over the expected high volume of traffic of heavy duty

vehicles to the site which poses health and safety issues for children and their

parents attending the adjacent nursery school and inadvertently St John's

Church of England Primary School which is nearby the site and has had a number

of reported safety issues. The narrow farm entrance is off Main Road and the

large size of these trucks means that they can only enter or exit with great

difficulty causing serious traffic congestion as the drivers try to

navigate this wholly unsuitable access route for extremely large HGVs. Noise and

ventilation issues could arise during works and the subsequent fabrication

activity associated with light industrial use. Further detail is

required to ensure its impact is not detrimental to the adjacent nursery and

surrounding properties. We've also got a written statement from Councillor Sade

dear committee unfortunately I'm unable to attend this meeting as a committee

member hence my writing as a ward member my ward colleague and I have called this

application in and I'm glad that it's being considered by the committee my

reason for calling it in is stated in the officers report so I will speak to

that rather than restate in the reasons the recommendation stated that approval

is subject to certain conditions being approved to prevent adverse impact the

The fact that there's the possibility of adverse impact at this stage begs the

question of how the agreed plans will be monitored and enforced. It can be argued

that work has already commenced prior to this application to seek determination

and the work has caused major traffic congestion in a village with narrow

roads and a narrow site entrance. The nursery next door was very concerned

about the health of staff and parents dropping off and picking up children

because of the dust and noise. The impact on the nursery I see in paragraph 4 .3

29 of the officer's report is nil based on Class C light industrial use. I

acknowledge and I'm glad that the officer has proposed prior approval of

ventilation and extraction systems but how can this be enforced to prevent

installation without notice? NPPF policy on non duplication I hope will not

deter working together with environmental services to ensure the

health and safety of nursery users and nearby residents. The health and safety

of nursery uses and nearby residents should remain paramount. Thank you for

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:54:21

listening. Thank you. I'd like committee members to ask questions but they're not here so

we'll move on to Councillor Graham Peart, Lacey Green, Parish Council.

Public Speaker - 2:54:32

Good evening members. I'm Graham Peart and I'm speaking as the chair of Lacey

Green Parish Council. The Parish Council is content in principle with the change

of use class requested as the classification does give reasonable

safeguards. I'm present to oppose the recommendation of removal of the

condition that stops 40 tonne articulated vehicles from entering the

village. The 2008 permission on the site that is still current has conditions and

in particular condition nine states,

the delivery of goods and vehicles to and from the site

shall not at any time involve transport vehicles

exceeding a minimum length of 12 metres.

Reason, the surrounding network is unsuitable to be served

by articulated vehicles, nothing has changed.

The applicant has persistently broken

the current planning conditions by taking deliveries

from 40 tonne Arctic HEVs despite many objections.

The stop notice may have been appropriate

as these very large vehicles demonstrated significant problems

as in Councillor Carrington's letter.

Item 4 .15 in your notes introduces the notion of large articulated vehicles

and item 4 .31 revisits the 12 -metre length condition again,

presumably in preparation of mitigation of the use of 40 -tonne HGVs.

Item 7 .0 Recommendation, Section 4, proposes deliveries by rigid vehicles not exceeding

12 metres in length, as is the current permission, then introduces deliveries by articulated

delivery vehicles in excess of 12 metres in length shall access the site only from the

north and no such vehicles shall leave in a southerly direction.

This is not acceptable or rational to allow articulated vehicles into the village.

Firstly, illogical allowance of HGVs and then restricting them arriving only from the north through the village.

The oversized vehicles that have been visiting the site are not owned or controlled by the applicant.

They are vehicles delivering aluminium sections from multiple suppliers to multiple customers,

arriving and leaving at will in both directions.

Who would monitor this condition

and what mitigation does the northerly route actually offer?

Second, there is a sign on the road

entering Lacey Green from the north

limiting HGVs to 7 .5 tonnes except for access.

It is unsafe to run 40 tonne articulated HGVs

through the winding roads of Lacey Green Village

and past the school.

The only larger vehicles that use the road are PSVs,

all of which are rigid. In summary the parish council is proposing that

condition 9 in the 2008 approval be replicated in any new permission

limiting delivery vehicles to be rigid and 12 metres in maximum length.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:57:38

Thank you Councillor Pate. Do we have any questions from members for Councillor Pate?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:57:41

Councillor Collingwood.

Councillor Pate, I've got the 4 .31 for the 12 metres bit but I missed the bit about the 40 tonne

So where is the reference for that part for me?

Because I've got condition nine written down, but I was then trying to cross -reference it

between the report and the previous application.

So where's the 40 -tonne restriction come from?

I'm sure it must be there somewhere, but I just can't find it.

So thank you.

Public Speaker - 2:58:12

The condition nine is in the 2008 planning approval.

It's in the recommendation where it basically suggests

that it's okay for large HGVs up to 16 .5 metres in length

to visit the site.

And it says there it could be once a week, twice a week,

no times a week is the right answer.

Any other members?

No?

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 2:58:44

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Greg Smith.

Public Speaker - 2:58:50

MP. Thank you. Good evening for the third time.

I submitted an objection to this proposal in January,

and the central concern I raised then remains the same.

Is this particular use compatible with this particular access,

especially given the nursery immediately alongside it?

This is not an objection to business employment

or bringing redundant buildings back into use.

It's about whether the proposed intensity

and nature of vehicle movements are appropriate at this location.

We already know what the access looks like in practise.

Before this application had been determined, works had commenced at the site,

and large vehicles were using the access. My objection recorded the difficulties those

vehicles experienced entering and leaving from the main road, the disruption caused,

and damage along the narrow private track,

including to the verge signage and road surface.

But my greatest concern is the nursery.

Children, parents, and staff

are using that same narrow access.

There is no footway along the track.

My concern has always been that regular movements

by large commercial vehicles

are simply not a comfortable combination

with small children arriving at and leaving a day nursery.

The committee report recognises

that this is not an imaginary concern.

The applicant proposes deliveries by HGVs,

mainly rigid vehicles, vehicles of up to 12 metres

with occasional larger articulated vehicles.

But as we've heard, those larger vehicles

are absolutely unacceptable.

The council is consequently proposing restrictions

both on delivery times and on the routing of larger HGVs.

but the roads just can't cope with that at any time of day.

Indeed, the proposed tradition condition

deliberately prevents deliveries

at the main nursery and drop -off periods,

but I don't see how that would be enforced.

Because this is an important point.

If special restrictions are required specifically

to avoid conflict between HGVs and nursery children,

members should examine very carefully

whether conditions adequately resolve

the underlying relationship between those two uses.

Lacie Green Parish Council has maintained its objection and has specifically asked that

members and highways officers see the access for themselves.

Photographic evidence demonstrates the difficulties with HGV movements and the safety implications

for the daycare.

I recognise that officers and the highway authority have reached different conclusions

and consider the movements capable of being accommodated, but members have to consider

the site as it actually operates, not merely whether a swept path drawing shows that a

vehicle can technically make the manoeuvre. Reality is often different to a desktop exercise.

My objection therefore remains centred on those reasons and I urge the committee to

reject.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:01:51

Thank you. Any questions from members? Thank you. Now we move on to Nick Sonney, an objector.

Public Speaker - 3:02:07

Can you move your phone from the microphone?

Can you take the next microphone?

Hopefully you can hear me.

Good evening guys.

So I'm Nick Soni and I live in Grimstag Close right next door to the side.

And I'm not only speaking for myself tonight, right?

Several of my neighbours share the exact concerns,

including the Daycraft guys.

We share the same access.

It's also here tonight with us,

and just make sure they are actually caring for the kids.

So on behalf of all of us, first of all,

I would like to absolutely recommend you guys

to refuse this application.

I'll base my objection on three different sections.

So first of all, the applicant has already broken the rules,

which again, the other counsellors

have said the same thing.

Since 2008, the site has strictly meant to be operated under one condition.

No delivery lorries under over 12 metres in length.

However, the applicant's own report admits that this condition is already broken.

I myself have filmed the proof of videos and pictures and have submitted to the officer, Jenny Aion, as well as part of this whole thing.

They have damaged the grass verges, damaged the road, the condition of it and a lot of damages to the bins and everything

Okay, and there is documented physical evidence of all these damages have already been submitted

Including the highway officers comments, right?

They admit that nobody has ever actually checked whether a lorry can safely turn into this site from the south

And this is exactly what the video shows, right? So that's already been proven

Okay, the solution is to route the larger lorries from the north

However, that road already has a weight restriction, right? So I don't think so that's going to

work as well. Okay. In terms of the whole, the nursery daycare, right? Again, young kids,

right? Like their parents, they used to drive day in, day out, right? Concerns for their

safety has already been raised, but again, we haven't heard much in terms of like, you

know, what can be done in that sense. Again, in terms of the site, obviously it sits in

the green belt. So it kind of like, you know, visiting the children's AONC and everything.

so it has to convert to that.

In terms of the landscape assessment,

the council is only considering how the building looks.

It's never assessing what the daily high goods

vehicle movements, the diesel emissions,

the ongoing industrial activity will actually do

to that landscape, right?

That's never been assessed, okay?

So the real question basically for today is

like what mechanism can actually be placed

to make sure they can actually enforce,

all these rules can be enforced,

and they will actually follow it

because it's already proven that they've broken

all these rules already.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:04:56

Any questions from members?

Nope.

Public Speaker - 3:05:05

And we move on to Sam Tiffin, the agent.

Chair members, thank you for the opportunity to speak

and to Jenny Iron working through the application with us.

We appreciate the concerns raised by neighbours

and the parish council, particularly about the shared access and the neighbouring nursery.

The applicant recognises the importance of operating considerately and those concerns

have informed the safeguards before you.

The application offers a productive future for an established scattered business site

recognised under policy DM 5.

As you would have read, a previous housing proposal was refused and that the decision

upheld at appeal because of the loss of employment was considered unacceptable.

Subsequently, this proposal responds positively, a business investing in the premises and securing

their continued employment use.

Turning to highways, the highway authority have reviewed the evidence and raises no objection.

Vehicle tracking demonstrates that all vehicles that visit the site can turn and enter and

leave it in a forward gear safely.

Where the tricks assessment predicts more vehicle movements than the applicant expects

in practise and this includes likely just to be one large articulated movement.

Even taking the higher levels, the highway authority considers the traffic movement and

size of vehicles serving the site to be acceptable.

The owner already requires large vehicles, those exceeding 12 metres to enter and exit

from the north.

This has always been the safest option and instructed even before the condition was considered.

and the proposed condition formalises that agreement. The applicant has

invested significant funds into bringing what was a rather derelict and quite

unsightly building into good repair. Officers confirm the works improve their

previously dilapidated appearance while respecting their agricultural character

and rural surroundings. The early car valeting permission included external

alterations providing relevant context for the repair works to the buildings

that you saw on the screen tonight.

Officers have assessed the present works as acceptable.

We recognise that the successful employment use

depends on a considerate relationship with neighbours

and conditions controlling deliveries,

operating hours and vehicle routing

provides a clear framework for that relationship.

Turning to the planning balance,

safeguarding employment sites means keeping them usable

and available for businesses and local jobs.

The nursery has been sitting aside to this industrial site

for many years and it's obviously appreciated that situations change and

things move on and the new owners have taken up to refurbish the site and put

it back into operation. The pro and the proposal and the scheme in front of you

puts that policy objective into practise. The economic benefits do deserve

substantial weight as your officer recognise with appropriate safeguards in

We respectfully ask members to support the recommendation.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:08:12

Any questions from members?

No.

Thank you.

Then I'll open up the debate.

Well, I'm not taking any, well,

you can have the technical questions in that debate,

but I'm gonna allow Councillor Mike West

and Councillor Clive Harris,

because they were site visit members,

to have the first say.

Nope.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:08:39

Councillor Harris, you want to shoot?

Thank you very much.

This is one of those anomalies where we've got a series of older buildings that have

been used over the years for a number of different uses and have fallen out of kilter with each

other.

I can fully understand the concerns of the people within the nursery in terms of their

parking and the large vehicles passing them by.

but looking at the historic uses of the industrial type buildings,

agricultural buildings next door, historically those were the size of vehicles

would have been passing by the front door anyway.

The site has been tested for residential and I'm sure in different times

we would rather see a residential development taking place here,

But because we had a strong local plan,

we managed to hold on to the existing employment use.

So we can see just how effective a local plan can be.

So for me, this is a very, very difficult one.

We talk about not being able to access the area

with sizable vehicles, but from memory,

we've got country supplies, which have a far larger site

than this down the road and they are supplied by all manner of different size vehicles going

straight past the school and obviously past the RAF base as well. So I want to hear what

you've got to say because for me it's a very difficult one. Restrictions on hours of usage,

restriction on the size of vehicles, but it's how you can make that self -monitoring is the

question. There's always going to be the driver that turned up late, and with so many things

now being delivered internationally, you only have to go down to Huandah Valley to see the

vehicles going into country supplies there, turning up four and five o 'clock in the morning

and queuing outside to go in.

And in the winter they'll have the engines on

to keep warm and that sort of thing.

So it's a difficult one.

The size of the buildings from experience

shouldn't generate that many huge vehicles.

But in this day and age,

if you can get all your deliveries on one vehicle

and it's stopped in four or five places,

you save yourself a lot of money.

So there will be sizeable vehicles going in there.

And there's plenty of turning yard at the back of the site.

But it's up to you.

I'm open -minded.

Councillor West.

Yes, it is difficult.

Cllr Michael West - 3:11:30

And yes, I would acknowledge that mix of school children

and large HGVs is not a good mix,

but let's face it, it happens in several places

on public roads every day of the week.

and any, when it comes down to safety,

it's more a question of management

than it is of actually whether or not

vehicles are permitted or not permitted.

There is, from visiting the site,

I can see no reason with good management

why lorries should need to reverse at all.

There is ample room on the site for turning,

driving out forwards.

There is ample room on the road for turning in either direction, although they do accept

a restriction on the direction that they turn to try and make it even safer.

I would be happier to some extent if there were no articulated lorries at all, and all

deliveries were made on smaller rigid -bodied lorries.

But I have to accept the site.

I don't think there will be that many lorries in and out of the site anyway, to be honest.

And I think that with good management, the two businesses can run successfully side by side.

And I can't see a logical reason for actually opposing the change of use.

How's that calling, Wood?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:13:09

I did actually go there this afternoon, and to Country Supplies as well, because I was

trying to work out, I actually turned into the RAF base as well, but that's just a sat -naz

for you, isn't it?

So I did that entrance, this entrance, and if we can go back on one of the pictures,

I can see exactly where the objector's talking.

So come back to where the entrance where you had like combined entrance for the two, it

was really narrow and I was confused which one I was going to and I ended up

going to the right one which was the that one there so I drove straight through and

straight through to where the cars are which is the right way but I was a

bit unsure that is a narrow entrance right so I think the condition knowing

that the Council of Pitt talked about seven and a half tonnes I think timings if they

could get outside the school nursery time is great but I don't know if that's

doable in terms of the condition, I don't know.

But certainly the size of it,

I drove right the way in then,

and then went into the car park

and actually then drove back out again.

I then drove into Country Supplies again

to make sure I got the right location.

And that was a much bigger access point,

much more simpler, I had loads of lorries,

but actually it was like 20 times wider.

So for me, I'm not saying we would refuse the usage,

but I think definitely I want the conditions strengthened.

There is only seven and a half tonne lorries,

not HTVs, the less than 12 metre bit,

well I can't remember exactly,

but basically I want it to be what I call

transit van size, if that makes sense,

rather than articulated lorries.

And then the use of the business units

to then deal with it appropriately.

But if they then failed to comply,

then I think we then would go down the enforcement route.

So for me, Chairman won't necessarily want to refuse it,

but definitely do not want the articulated lawyers.

So I think, I don't know how you phrase it

in condition terms, it's either seven and a half tonnes

or rigid body or whatever the phrase is,

I don't know Chairman, but it's one of those two

to make it a clear condition that could be enforceable.

And then you could give documentary evidence

that if a 40 tonne turns up, clearly they're in breach.

so there's clear evidence you can clearly show breach

if that makes sense.

Thank you, Chairman.

Any other members?

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 3:15:36

Councillor Freire.

Second, Mr. Chairman.

And just to add to that,

I will say that the other proposed conditions

on the operating hours, deliveries and vehicle movements

sufficiently precise and enforceable

to protect nearby residents and the nursery.

We'll come back to you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:15:57

Any other members?

Councillor Arthur -Hewitt.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 3:16:02

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I don't...

I mean, if it's saying here that the 12 metres is acceptable,

I don't know how we reduce that or play with that

if there isn't actually an officer's reason to back that up,

how we just...

Otherwise we might look as if we pick and choose what we want

without there being any backup.

But all I was going to say...

No, I'm genuinely interested.

The other thing is, I don't know, I totally appreciate that there's, it's been brought up a few times about work already commencing and it causing a bit of an upset.

We can't do anything about that on planning because, you know, unfortunately that's not a material reason.

But I think being good neighbours is something that would be nice to see progress with this

because it's being done on the goodwill that that changes as things go on.

Because I think some of the things that have been said here today are just about being

good neighbours and being appreciative.

But I don't know how you, I'd love to know, Councillor Collingwood, how we decide off

or in bats for what an appropriate vehicle is

if it goes against what the officers have said.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:17:20

My point was when you read the report,

they did a desktop exercise, so they didn't go on site.

I had to drive in there with just a Mercedes estate car,

right, so it's not a big car.

And even I was like going,

crikey, this is narrow, this is tight,

and then in manoeuvring around the site,

it wasn't that big a site to manoeuvre around.

So if you then got a 40 tonne article in comparison

to say my Mercedes,

and I thought it was tight for a Mercedes,

that tells you it's gotta be a seven and a half tonne

of change advanced style, not a 40 tonne articulated lorry.

So that's where I was coming from in terms of the,

but I don't know how the officers changed the wording

of the condition to stop the 40 tonne articulated lorries

coming in, because getting a 40 tonne articulated lorry,

that will struggle massively to get in there.

So that's why I was asking the officers to give us

that type of wording that gives you that,

you can't have that size of vehicle.

Now whether it's a 12 metre long or whatever it is,

I don't know what they need to use

that's clearly then enforceable.

But having physically driven it

rather than doing desktop exercise,

I can tell you that's a really tight site.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:18:25

Sorry, can I just comment on that?

No, you've had your time, thank you.

Can I ask members to go through the chair

with your questions please,

not converse to each other, thank you.

Councillor Clive Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:18:40

Thanks very much.

Just looking closely at the weight classes

for commercial vehicles.

I think realistically if we put a maximum tonnage on there,

of three and a half to seven and a half tonnes,

then that would provide for the size of vehicle

we're looking at, as opposed to the much bigger

to panatechnigans or a 32 to 42, 44 tonne type vehicles.

The difficulty is how many tenants are we going to end up with on the site?

What are the different uses going to be on the site?

There's all manner of different classes here.

So how are the occupiers?

It's very down to the tenants.

Ms. Jenny Ion - 3:19:29

Yeah, I think now is a good time to sort of address this issue of what conditions may

or may not be suitable or reasonable.

and I will have to take you back to the 2008 permission

and the reasons behind that to start with

and what the highway officer actually said

about that condition at the time.

And he was clear that although the condition said

the reason was surrounding highway networks

unsuitable to be served by articulation transporters,

he couldn't find any record of the highway authorities

saying that specifically.

what they said was that there was an issue

with larger vehicles visiting the site,

which were problematic at school times.

And I think it's also important to point out

that in 2008, there were not parking restrictions

on the main road which there are now.

And therefore, at that time,

parking associated with the school

would have extended all the way down

to where the site access is.

And that would have been behind

the highway authorities comments at the time

saying that larger vehicles were particularly problematic at school times.

That situation has now changed because there are waiting restrictions either

side of the access into the site. Therefore cars cannot park there and

therefore it makes the access for larger vehicles less problematic than it was at

that time. However the condition that was put on related to the lengths of the

vehicles rather than the weight of the vehicles and it's the length of the

vehicle, which I understand to be significant in terms

of its ability to manoeuvre.

And therefore, that's why the condition

was placed on restricting the length of vehicles

at that time to the 12 metre length.

What has since been demonstrated through the tracking drawings

at which have been submitted is not only

that rigid vehicles of that length

can turn in, that longer articulated vehicles

can turn into the site.

And tracking is important to show

that it is technically possible and that is the basis

on which our Highway Officers will make their assessment.

So they have said that the vehicles can get into the site

from one particular direction.

The only reason to suggest a condition restricting it

to that is because it hasn't been demonstrated

in the other direction.

If tracking were to be submitted,

which showed that a vehicle could access

from the other direction, then they would have worded

the suggested condition differently.

I'm therefore quite reluctant to suggest

putting a tonnage weight restriction on vehicles because I'm not clear what that does in terms

of size of vehicles and what that would do for the ability of the proposed use to operate.

Given that it's the size and say that's important in terms of manoeuvring I think that the condition

as written should provide safeguards that members are seeking together with the hours

restriction for access and we have made the hours of delivery and taking goods

away from the site narrower than those for the actual use of the site itself so

that deliveries can't take place till later and stop earlier to avoid

the peak times where traffic is going in and out to drop off and collect from the

nursery. In terms of whether the condition, the question I was asked about

whether those conditions are sufficiently precise

and enforceable.

They are precise because they set out very clear times

at which things can happen either in terms of use

or deliveries and they are therefore enforceable.

If there is a breach of those times,

then it will be quite clear

and the council does have important enforcement powers

in terms of breach of condition notices available to it

where breach of conditions occur.

Therefore think that the conditions that we've suggested

are sufficient to manage the issues that people are concerned about and this is

why we are recommending that permission should be granted subject to those

conditions.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:23:33

Any other questions? Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:23:36

So I've read condition 4 on page 107 which is the one I guess you're specifying about the 12 metre piece.

That region being no longer than 12 metres but then subsequently additional HTV deliveries

by particularly lawyers allowed to go only from north, not south.

How would you be able to enforce that?

Would then the residents be able to then take photographs of them doing it the wrong way

around if that makes sense?

And then we would then bring enforcement against the operators?

or because it may not be the applicants it may be third -party operators so how

would the enforcement work then because that's why I'd rather just keep it to 12

metres and then keep it at that and then you've got clarity of that tells you if

it's 12 metres if it's 15 metres then it's clearly in breach do you mean

whereas this way round north and not south how do we make sure we can then

and forth.

I granted it's not the easiest thing,

Ms. Jenny Ion - 3:24:39

but you would have to collect the evidence as you say,

that there were breaches,

bit like where environmental health,

ask people to collect noise incidents

if they're tracking breaches of their legislation.

So it would be a question of collecting

the appropriate evidence and then being able

to serve a notice.

It will be for the applicant to liaise with their suppliers

to make sure they're aware of the restrictions

and that they followed the routing.

But I grant what you say, occasionally there may be

the one that doesn't follow the agreement

and that is always a risk, but this is the best,

I think the best solution we have available to us

is to impose the conditions as we've set out.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:25:24

Thank you, you say we're reluctant

to put a weight restriction.

And I think for the purposes of example, a 51 to 55 -seater coach is 12 metres long.

We know how hard they are to manoeuvre if you've ever sat in one.

On the other hand, it doesn't preclude articulated lorries with short containers on.

It's quite common with operations like this where there's yard space, the things are delivered

by container and dropped off, especially small containers.

If we impose a weight restriction, then the nature of the vehicle that can go into the

property is specified, as is the driver's licence.

So you can't just suddenly turn up in one vehicle or another.

You're actually physically employing someone who has the ability to drive a specific size

of vehicle.

I think that would probably give us the protection we're looking for rather than length.

Mr Martin.

Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about why you think that would be better than what's in front of you

when you're not producing any evidence as to what the problem might be.

Mr Ray Martin - 3:26:49

It's your judgement that the access might be a problem for heavier vehicles, longer vehicles,

I don't know.

But what we're relying on is the specialist advice we're given by our highways authority.

And unless you're producing any evidence to the contrary, I would strongly advise you

to go with a specialist advice that's in front of you, because otherwise you're putting this

at risk.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:27:18

Thank you for the clarification, Chairman, the clarification.

So just playing that out in reality then, so if we then have relevant breaches down

the line as it were, would it be someone like Environmental Health or someone like that

comes in and then basically says you're now in breach one, two, three, four, ten times

or whatever it's going to be, can they then like almost put a stop notice on it going

actually you're clearly in breach and you're clearly flatting the rules because the Planning

permissions in there with that condition can they then go actually you breached

it 20 times you're now gonna be on a stop notice does that happen reality or

is it just a slap on the wrist mr. Martin it will be for planning

Ms. Jenny Ion - 3:28:00

enforcement to enforce the conditions not environmental health and it would

say the usual notice for a breach of condition would be a breach of condition

notice which would be served and then there is if they can if they breach

continue to preach the notice then we would have to look at what further

action we could take

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:28:25

our system might be able to give more advice on that point I don't think we

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 3:28:27

can sit here and work out how we can change conditions to make sure that

people don't breach stuff we don't know they're gonna breach and to be honest

I'm quite happy to propose that we go forward with this application if everyone

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:28:42

agrees to that. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Muslim Hussein. Those who are in

favour of the recommendation on page 106 number 7 please raise your hands.

Those against. Abstentions.

One, two, three, four abstentions.

So it's carried then with three. Thank you.

7 PL/25/4361/FA - The Hedgerow, Parkwood, Walters Ash HP14 4XQ

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:30:45

Right members we move on to application number PL stroke 25 stroke 4361 stroke FA the

Ms. Jenny Ion - 3:30:57

head road Parkwood Walters Ash HB 14 4q sorry 4xq I like to hand over to Jenny

again Mrs. Jenny Irons. Thank you chairman so this application proposes

the use of the land as a private gypsy and traveller caravan site for two

pictures which would include two utility buildings and parking and for the

retention of hard standing and an existing caravan. To be clear

the hard standing was associated with the previous stables on the site and

there was a touring caravan which was also used on the site in connexion with

the stables as some sort of rest facility. So I point out the update sheet

there are again some adjustments to conditions,

principally to just to change the wording slightly

to tighten up the conditions.

There is also an additional condition at the end,

which was referred to in the report,

but omitted to secure details of the foul drainage

from the site and also condition to specify the plans.

So the application site is a contained parcel of land

set just outside the village of Walters Ash.

it's adjacent to RAF High Wycombe. It's in the Greenbelt and it's also in the

Chilterns National Landscape. It is surrounded by roads on all sides with

new road to the north and park wood circling it to the south. The site

currently has a single gated access onto park wood and has a stable block and

hard standing at its eastern end. The proposal is for the use of the land for

two gypsy and traveller pitches. Access will be through the existing gateway

with one pitch on either side of the entrance. Each pitch would have one

static caravan, a small utility block, parking for two vehicles and parking for

one touring caravan. The remainder of the site will be kept as grass and

additional tree and hedge planting is proposed to contribute to screening and

also to delivering a 10 % net gain in biodiversity. If we look through the

plans that shows you the location plan first or if you want to go back you can

see the main road is sort of to the northeast and then you can see RAF

High Wycombe is to the west and there are a couple of houses just going off the edge of the plant to

the south. Next one please. So this gives you an indication of what the mobile homes would

potentially look like for the static caravans. We point out as the use of the site as a caravan

site is a use of land then the caravans could be changed out for those of a different design

provided they remain within the legal definition of a caravan. Next slide please. These are the

to day rooms or utility blocks which would be provided,

one on each pitch.

They are small buildings.

And then next one is the site layout,

which gives you an idea.

You've got the access there on the southern side.

One pitch either side, where the M is the mobile home,

the U for the utility block, and then we've

got parking spaces and the space for the static caravans noted.

Proposed hedge planting to separate the site

from the grassed area to the west and proposed tree planting.

There would actually, as part of the biodiversity net gain assessment,

additional tree planting to that which is shown on this particular plan.

If we look now at the photographs, this shows you the entrance to the site.

That's taken in the winter months, as you can tell from the snow on the ground at the time.

Next one, please.

And that is the access into the site itself.

You can see there the five bar gate.

Next one please.

That's standing just inside the gate and looking to the right you can see the existing stable building which is there at the moment.

Next one.

And that is turning, swinging round to the left from the stables.

You can see there an area fenced off and there are goats in that area at the moment.

Next one.

And then fencing there to the left.

You can see the hard standing there.

The second picture will be to the left of that hard standing

and then the remaining area further to the left

will be kept as grass.

Next one.

You can see that area a bit more detail.

And next one.

You can see that again taken in the winter months.

Next one.

So now this is taken from the main road.

And there are some gaps in the screening along the road.

you can see glimpsed view through to the existing site.

Next one.

So that is a view looking along the main road.

The site is on your right.

You can see the footpath there

and the tree and hedge screening along there.

Next one.

So that is taking yourself around into Parkwood.

This is the side near the water tower.

Next one.

And that's coming around the corner.

I think you can just see the two houses at the very end of the roadway there.

Next. And that's taken in the winter. You can see still that the screening is

relatively effective to the site. Next one. And that's the corner. You can just

see the stables over the hedges there in that particular photograph. And the next

one I think okay so the key issues are set out in your report on pages towards

the end of the report and they are whether this is appropriate development

in the green belt access and highway safety issues the impact on the national

landscape the amenity for existing and future occupiers and the delivery of 10 %

biodiversity net gain the application is recommended for permission subject to

to the conditions set out on pages 130 to 135,

but as amended in the update sheet

that I referred to earlier, thank you.

Thank you.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:36:44

So we have public speaking on this item

who we will hear from shortly.

They are, we have a written statement

from Councillor Robert Carrington,

then we have Councillor Yvonne Wilding,

Parish Council, and then we have for the agent

and applicant Phil Rheier and Mr. Martin Rooney.

So shall we start off with a written statement

Mr Leslie Ashton - 3:37:06

from Councillor Robert Carrington, please?

Thank you, Chairman.

This is from Councillor Carrington.

Thank you to the committee for hearing my statement

as a local ward councillor for Ridgeway West.

As raised by a number of comments,

including by Bradenham Parish Council,

there are a number of concerns regarding this application.

This site has already been found unsuitable

for permanent traveller accommodation with the previous application, reference number 11 -05 -64 -FUL,

which concluded that the development would cause significant harm to the landscape quality and

scenic beauty and seriously erode the openness of the green belt, with this current application

making limited effort to counter this. The site sits in the Chilterns National Landscape

and paragraph 189 of the MPPF states that great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing

landscape and scenic beauty in national landscapes. There also seems to be incomplete

information in the plans regarding utilities and sewage. I am aware that there is considered to be

a shortage of traveller sites but this is not identified as a site within the draught Buckinghamshire

local plan and this was not put forward as a suggested site during the call for sites process.

It is clearly deemed not suitable for a site

has found and decided on by officers in the past.

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:38:32

Thank you.

Now we move on to Councillor Yvonne Wilding.

Good evening.

Public Speaker - 3:38:39

I'm here tonight to speak on behalf

of Hwingdon Parish Council,

which object to this application.

The officer's report concludes that this proposal

is not in appropriate development in the Greenbelt

because it falls within the new national policy framework exceptions relating to

previously developed land and Greybelt land.

Heughan and parish council respectfully disagree with that planning judgement.

The existing development on the site comprises a stable as you have seen an

associated hard standing. What is now proposed is a permanent residential

traveller site with two pictures, residential caravans, utility buildings, parking and supporting

infrastructure.

Members must ask themselves whether this change genuinely results in only limited impact on

the green belt openness.

This issue is not simply the footprint of individual structures.

Openness, I suppose, the spatial and visual dimension.

Residential occupation, domestic activity, parked vehicles, utility buildings and caravans all contribute to how development is experienced in the countryside.

Here in the parish council consider the transition from a stable to a permanent residential occupation creates a marginally greater impact than the officer's report acknowledges.

The site is also located within the Children's National Landscape, where national policy requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing natural beauty.

The proposed development includes additional built form and residential activity into a rural location within a potentially protected national landscape.

Members should carefully consider whether that change preserves the character in such a designation.

The officer's report refers to a substantial unmet need for traveller accommodation across Buckinghamshire.

The parish council recognises that need and it accepts it is a material consideration.

however our objection is not to traveller sites in principle nor is it a challenge

to the need for additional traveller accommodation in Buckinghamshire the

question of within members is whether this particular site and this landscape

is appropriate for this form of development

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:41:19

any questions from members no thank you would you like to switch off your mic

Public Speaker - 3:41:35

Thank you Councillor. Thank you. Now we move on to Mr Philip Rowe and Mr Martin Rooney.

Good evening Councillors. We are all aware that gypsy site applications can sometimes

be controversial. In this instance the applicants are incredibly grateful that the Planning

Officer, the Head of Planning and all Consultees are fully supportive of the application. The

applicants are agreeable to the suggested conditions.

The proposal would provide two pitches

towards the substantial shortfall

in the supply of gypsy and traveller pitches

in Buckinghamshire.

The proposal would use grey belt land

and not fundamentally undermine the purposes

of the green belt.

The proposal is in a sustainable location

and would meet an evidenced unmet need. It is therefore appropriate development

in the Greenbelt and is acceptable in principle. Now distinct from the first

application that was heavily debated tonight our site is not in open

Greenbelt. It is fully enclosed by landscaping. It is unambiguously

grey belt. The new national planning guidance has brought in the grey belt

principle that was not in play when the previous application was refused. That is

a critical distinction. The applicant's family are long -standing local residents.

This is for the the children of the local family because they cannot stay on

the site there's not enough room. Critically distinct from the first

application these applications have played the game not the game but gone

about things in the right manner it is not a retrospective application they are

not seeking to alienate the local residents they're seeking to work with

them and be part of the community. The applicant has been incredibly patient

waiting for decision has gone to great lengths to work with the council to

ensure that the proposed development would fit in well

with the wider pattern of development in the vicinity.

The council officers agree that the adverse effects

in relation to the national landscape are minimal

and would not significantly outweigh the benefits.

A refusal in this instance will inevitably mean

that permission is allowed on appeal

and based on the officer recommendation for approval

would likely constitute unreasonable behaviour

where the costs award against the council. We've all got homes to go to

tonight but applicants haven't. They face the prospect of growing up with a

roadside existence without access to education and basic medical needs.

The council still needs to find 225 gypsy pitches

given the extent of Greenbelt and national landscape across the district

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 3:44:47

members need to thank you I don't know why I've just said to you thank you yeah

do members have any questions no council Harris council West because you

Cllr Michael West - 3:45:12

site visit. Members, you have the first shout. Thank you. One question, is this

greenbelt? If it is, I can't see why it hasn't been downgraded into

greybelt. It is an isolated island of land surrounded by three roads. It's very

small, it's quite discreet, it's got fairly mature vegetation,

lamps and trees and hedges. You would drive past it and I don't

even think you'd realise it was there. If it was anywhere other

than in national landscape or anything other than designated

greenbelt, then I don't think there would be an issue with

this at all, that's my opinion.

Councillor Harris.

Cllr Clive Harriss - 3:46:06

I'm inclined to agree.

I mean, for years we've been coming to this committee

and we've been looking at boundary treatments

and where there are holes in the fence

and then we can insist on extra foliate being put in.

But it's an entirely private site, it's bound on each side

and then you've got a military installation next door to it.

across the roads completely different storey and that's that's wide open

countryside so for me it's it's fairly straightforward yeah it's nice to see

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:46:42

the goats I did go to the site today and it wasn't snowing right but like my

fellow speakers this is this is distinctly different from the previous

application where it was open green by land and you were going to basically open up the whole of

the site. This is fully enclosed. I drove all the way around it twice to make sure I got the right

place and then I found the five yard gate and literally yes you probably need a bit more foliage

just to cover off the bits and pieces but I think I've read in there that the conditions are there

for that part to make that work on which basis you never even know the two mobile homes or

to take our vans but it will be even there right so let me this is sorry to

the parish councillor but I'm sorry this is one that we should be approving thank

you any other members so I would like a

proposal and seconder please sorry miss mrs. I just want to answer some of your

Ms. Jenny Ion - 3:47:48

questions yes Councillor West asked me a direct question is it Greenbelt and the

The answer is yes, it is green belt,

but it's also grey belt.

So it is both those things.

So it falls within the definition of grey belts.

I set out quite clearly in my report,

which is why we're recommending it for approval.

In terms of the landscaping that Councillor Colle

had mentioned, because this is subject to 10 %

mandatory biodiversity net gain,

there will need to be a biodiversity game plan

discharged before the site can be occupied

or developed to begin.

but that actually because it's subject to that that secures the landscaping for

a lot or the planting that's part of that scheme for a lot longer than a

standard landscaping condition would do.

Thank you.

Can I have a proposal and seconder please?

Councillor Collinwood proposal. Councillor...

Hands up, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Approved.

8 Date and Time of Next Meeting

We move on to agenda item 8. Date of next meeting will be Wednesday, 21

October 2026 at 6 .30 p .m. Agenda item 9.

9 Availability of Members Attending Site Visits (if required)

site visit. Members please. Thank you and finally I'd like to thank the officers

Webcast Finished - 3:49:28

and members. Well done it's been a long meeting. Thank you and a safe journey home.

Good night.

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt

Labour Party

View profile

Mr Leslie Ashton

Democratic Services Officer

Buckinghamshire Council

View profile

Cllr Mohammed Ayub

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Steven Broadbent

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Chris Chilton

Labour Party

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Mrs Emma Crotty

View profile

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Clive Harriss

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Maz Hussain

Conservative

View profile

Sanila Hussain

Partnership Support Officer

View profile

Ms. Jenny Ion

View profile

Mr Ray Martin

View profile

Mr Matthew McKane

View profile

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja

Conservative

View profile

Ms. Katherine Stubbs

View profile

Cllr Matthew Walsh

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Michael West

Liberal Democrats

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeWednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 6:30pm

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:00

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:00:14

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Leslie Ashton - 0:01:01

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:01:10

3 Minutes of the Last Meeting

4 25/05307/FUL - Ladys Mile, Kingshill Road, High Wycombe HP13 5BB

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:02:08

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:02:11

Sanila Hussain - 0:02:56

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:03:04

Cllr Chris Chilton - 0:10:08

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:13:37

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:13:49

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:13:59

Cllr Steven Broadbent - 0:14:04

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:16:57

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:17:05

Cllr Steven Broadbent - 0:17:20

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:17:27

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:17:29

Public Speaker - 0:17:37

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:20:19

Public Speaker - 0:20:32

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:23:32

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:23:38

Public Speaker - 0:24:18

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:24:31

Public Speaker - 0:24:36

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:27:40

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:27:50

Public Speaker - 0:28:25

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:29:20

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:29:32

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:31:34

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:31:46

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:31:50

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:32:16

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:35:33

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:35:37

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:37:01

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:37:29

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:37:34

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:41:22

Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:41:28

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:42:13

Mr Ray Martin - 0:42:23

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:15

Cllr Mohammad Fayyaz - 0:45:21

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:45:54

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:46:01

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:47:37

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:46

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:48:05

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:48:10

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:48:59

Mr Ray Martin - 0:49:07

Mr Matthew McKane - 0:51:02

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:51:32

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:39

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:54:13

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 0:54:29

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:56:06

Cllr Michael West - 0:56:12

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:57:36

Cllr Hazel Arthur-Hewitt - 0:57:40

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:05

Cllr Mohammed Ayub - 0:59:12

Cllr Maz Hussain - 0:59:25

Mr Ray Martin - 0:59:54

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:01:01

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:11

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:04:02

Cllr Sarfaraz Khan Raja - 1:04:10

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:05:02

Cllr Clive Harriss - 1:05:07

Cllr Maz Hussain - 1:07:13

West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 6:30pm