Public Document Pack

Visit www.wycombe/gov.uk/council-services/council-and-democracy for information about councillors and email alerts for meetings

Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe Bucks HP11 1BB

Planning Committee

Date: 1 July 2015 Time: 7.00 pm Venue: Council Chamber District Council Offices, Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe Bucks

Membership Chairman: Councillor P R Turner Vice Chairman: Councillor A E Hill

Councillors: Mrs J A Adey, M Asif, S Graham, C B Harriss, D A Johncock, Mrs G A Jones, A Lee, Mrs W J Mallen, N B Marshall, H L McCarthy, N J B Teesdale, A Turner, C Whitehead and L Wood

Standing Deputies Councillors: Z Ahmed, H Bull, D J Carroll, M Hanif, M A Hashmi, A Hussain, M Hussain, M E Knight and Ms C J Oliver

Fire Alarm - In the event of the fire alarm sounding, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings and do not use the lifts. Please congregate at the Assembly Point at the corner of Queen Victoria Road and the River Wye, and do not re -enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.

Agenda

Item Page

1. Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence.

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting 1 - 4

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 June 2015 (enclosed).

3. Declarations of Interest

To receive any disclosure of disclosable pecuniary interests by Members relating to items on the agenda. If any Member is uncertain as to whether an interest should be disclosed, he or she is asked if possible to contact the District Solicitor prior to the meeting.

Members are reminded that if they are declaring an interest, they

should state the nature of that interest whether or not they are required to withdraw from the meeting.

Planning Applications

4. 15/05718/FUL - 47 Carver Hill Road, High Wycombe, 5 - 13 Buckinghamshire, HP11 2TZ

5. 15/05998/FUL - Meadowbrook Cottage, Marsh Lane, Marsh, 14 - 27 Buckinghamshire, HP17 8SP

6. 14/06162/OUT - OS Parcel 8784, Mill Lane, Monks Risborough, 28 - 68 Buckinghamshire

7. 15/05044/FUL - OS Parcel 2146, Lane End, Footpath 10, Lane 69 - 86 End, Buckinghamshire

8. 15/05994/FUL - Calver Ridge, Desboroug h Avenue, High 87 - 95 Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2ST

Other items

9. Pre -Planning Committee Training / Information Session 96

10. Appointment of Members for Site Visits

To appoint Members to undertake site visits on Tuesday 28 July 2015 should the need arise.

11. File on Actions Taken under Delegated Authority

Submission of the file of actions taken under delegated powers since the previous meeting. This file is placed in the Members’ Room for inspection prior to the meeting.

12. Supplementary Items (if any)

If circulated in accordance with the five clear days’ notice provision.

13. Urgent items (if any)

Any urgent items of business as agreed by the Chairman.

For further information, please contact Liz Hornby, (01494) 421261, [email protected]

Planning Committee Mission Statement

The Planning Committee strives for quality in development, in the democratic process and in improving planning policy and practice in the District.

The Committee expects development to be sustainable, of high quality, with inclusive design and efficient use of resources, reflecting the vision of the approved spatial plans, so that the quality of the environment of the District is continually improved.

The Committee will operate in an open, transparent, impartial manner, listening to the views of all parties, making reasonable decisions based on justifiable planning reasons and sound judgement.

The Committee will foster continual improvement by identifying policy issues that need to be considered by the Planning Policy Advisory Group (PAG) in advising the Cabinet member for Planning and Sustainability. Matters relating to the operation of the Committee and the Planning Service as a whole will be relayed to the Head of Planning and Sustainability or the Head of Democratic Services as appropriate for their consideration.

(As agreed by the Planning Committee 19 th February 2014).

Mandatory Planning Training for Planning and Regulatory & Appeals Committee Members

A new Member (or Standing Deputy) to either the Planning or Regulatory & Appeals Committees is required to take part in a compulsory introductory planning training session.

These sessions are carried out at the start of each New Municipal Year usually with a number of ‘new Planning & R&A Members/Standing Deputies’ attending at the same time.

All Members and Standing Deputies of the Planning and Regulatory & Appeals Committee are then, during the municipal year, invited to at least two further training sessions (one of these will be compulsory and will be specified as such).

Where a new Member/Standing Deputy comes onto these committees mid-year, an individual ‘one to one’ introductory training session may be given.

No Member or Standing Deputy is permitted to make a decision on any planning decision before their Committee until their introductory training session has been completed.

Members or Standing Deputies on the Committees not attending the specified compulsory session will be immediately disqualified from making any planning decisions whilst sitting on the Committees.

This compulsory training session is usually held on two occasions in quick succession so that as many members can attend as possible.

Please note the pre planning committee training / information session held on the evening of Planning Committee do NOT constitute any qualification towards decision making status.

Though of course these sessions are much recommended to all Planning Members in respect of keeping abreast of Planning matters.

Note this summary is compiled consulting the following documents:

• Members Planning Code of Good Practice in the Council Constitution; • The Member Training Notes in Planning Protocol as resolved by Planning Committee 28/8/13; and • Changes to the Constitution as recommended by Regulatory & Appeals Committee.

Public DocumentAgenda Item Pack 2.

Planning Committee Minutes

Date: 3 June 2015

Time: 6.30 - 9.35 pm

PRESENT: Councillor P R Turner (in the Chair)

Councillors Mrs J A Adey, M Asif, S Graham, C B Harriss, A E Hill, D A Johncock, Mrs G A Jones, A Lee, Mrs W J Mallen, N B Marshall, H L McCarthy, A Turner and L Wood. Standing Deputies present: Councillors C J Oliver.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors: N J B Teesdale and C Whitehead.

LOCAL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE APPLICATION Councillor D J Carroll 14/08256/FUL Councillor R Farmer 15/05366/FUL & 15/05747/FUL OBSERVING

Mrs P Tollitt, Head of Planning & Sustainability

1 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED : That the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 29 April 2015 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED : That the reports be received and the recommendations contained in the reports be adopted, subject to any deletions, updates or alterations set out in the minutes below.

4 14/06368/FUL - OAKLEY HALL, 8 CASTLE STREET & 1ST FLOOR RED LION HOUSE, 9-10 HIGH STREET, HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP13 6RF

Including the update amending condition 6 adding “This shall include consideration of the potential noise to escape via Castle Street entrance and consideration of the use of a double door lobby and self-closing doors to mitigate this”, the Committee

Page 11 voted unanimously in favour of the motion to approve the application, subject to the following amendments –

1. The addition of a planning condition requiring that the bottle bins be stored internally, and, 2. That deliveries and collections take place between the hours of 07:00 and 18.00

The above two conditions were voted on as separate motions and were both agreed.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to the amendments as stated above.

The Committee was addressed by Mr John Croke in objection and Mr Neil Stretton, the applicant.

5 14/08256/FUL - FIELD OPPOSITE SPRINGFIELD, BRYANTS BOTTOM ROAD, BRYANTS BOTTOM, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP16 0JU

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to approve the application.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved.

The Committee was addressed by Councillors Mrs A Jones and D Carroll, the local Ward Members.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Brian Stanley in objection and Mr Brett Vowles, the Agent on behalf of the applicant.

6 15/05329/FUL - LAND ADJACENT 8 CRESWELL ROW, MARLOW, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, SL7 2QD

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to approve the application.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor N Marshall, the local Ward Member.

7 15/05366/FUL - WESTFIELDS, LONDON ROAD, HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP11 1HA

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to approve the application during which the Chairman’s casting vote was used in favour of approval.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor R Farmer, the local Ward Member.

Page 22 The Committee was addressed by Ms Lorraine Engel in objection and Mr James Lloyd, the Planning Agent.

8 15/05747/FUL - WESTFIELDS, LONDON ROAD, HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP11 1HA

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to approve the application.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor R Farmer, the local Ward Member.

9 14/06965/OUT - OS PARCEL 9166 BOXER ROAD & OS PARCEL 6576, WALNUT TREE LANE, LONGWICK, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

The Committee voted unanimously in favour of the motion that had the planning application not been appealed for non-determination, the Members’ decision would have been Minded to Refuse the application for the reasons set out in the main report.

Members noted that the applicant had appealed against non-determination and therefore the Committee no longer had jurisdiction to determine this application. A “minded to” decision from the Committee was however needed to enable the Council to present its position at an appeal.

RESOLVED: Had the Committee been in a position to determine the application, the Committee agreed unanimously with the officer’s recommendation that they were Minded to Refuse it.

10 14/07807/FUL - HATTERS COTTAGE, MOOR COMMON, LANE END, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP14 3HR

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the main report.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused.

11 15/05567/FUL - BEECHES FARM, MARLOW ROAD, LANE END, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP14 3DL

The Committee voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the main report.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused.

12 PRE-PLANNING COMMITTEE TRAINING / INFORMATION SESSION

Members noted that a training session would be a presentation by the Highway Authority.

Page 33

However, Members also noted that if the agenda was deemed to be particularly full for the July meeting, then the session would be cancelled and the Committee meeting would start at 6.30pm. Members would be informed accordingly.

13 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR SITE VISITS

RESOLVED : That in the event that it was necessary to arrange site visits on Tuesday 30 June in respect of the agenda for the meeting on Wednesday 1 July, the following Members be invited to attend with the relevant local Members:

Councillors: Mrs J A Adey, S Graham, C B Harriss, A E Hill, D A Johncock, T Lee, N B Marshall, H L McCarthy, A Turner, P R Turner and L Wood.

14 FILE ON ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

The file on actions taken under delegated authority since the previous meeting was circulated for the Committee’s attention.

______Chairman

The following officers we re in attendance at the meeting: Mrs L Bellinger - Principal Development Management Officer Miss G Hastings - Technical Officer Mrs L Hornby - Senior Democratic Services Officer Mr R Martin - Development Management Team Leader Mr A Nicholson - Development Manager Ms S Siddiq - Solicitor (Planning) Mr J Smith - DEHO (Control of Pollution) Mr R White - Principal Development Management Officer Mr B Whittall - Licensing Officer

Page 44 Agenda Item 4.

Contact: Valerie Bailey DDI No. 01494 421548

App No : 15/05718/FUL App Type: Full Application

Application for : Householder application for construction of side, front and rear single storey extension. Construction of hip to gable with rear dormer window and three rooflights in front roof slope in connection with loft conversion. (Part retrospective).

At 47 Carver Hill Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2TZ

Date Received : 08/05/15 Applicant : Mr Sajid Sardar

03/07/15 Target date for Decision

1. Summary 1.1. Permission is sought for the construction of a side, front and rear single storey extension. (This element is yet to be built). The application is also for the retention of a hip to gable roof extension with a rear dormer window and three rooflights in the front roof slope in connection with a loft conversion. 1.2. The site is in an established residential area and in Accessibility Zone 3. 1.3. The entire development is recommended for approval on the basis that the single storey extensions are acceptable and would not adversely impact on the character and/or appearance of the dwelling or the area in general. Neither would they be detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. In respect to the alterations to the roof that have already been carried out these could be carried out under the properties permitted development rights. Thus a refusal could not be sustained in this instance. In addition the re-roofing with different tiles again could be carried out under the property’s permitted development rights and as such a refusal could not be sustained. 1.4. The application is recommended for approval. 2. The Application 2.1. No. 47 Carver Hill Road is the left hand side (southern) of a pair of late 1950’s semi- detached dwellings. It is sited on the western side of Carver Hill Road. The site slopes down slightly from the road to the rear wall of the dwelling where it then falls way more significantly. The semis on this side of the road in the immediate area follow this same topography. They are mainly constructed of dark red brick with small dark tiles on the roof. 2.2. An amended plan has been received but this reflects what has been built on site as the original plan submitted was incorrect. 2.3. There are two separate elements to the development. The first element is for the retention of the alterations to the roof whereby the roof was enlarged by way of constructing a gable end from a hip and building a rear dormer window. These were in connection with a loft conversion that also included inserting three rooflights in the front roof slope. The volume created by the additions to the roof is some 47 cubic metres. This is less than the 50 cubic metres permissible under the property’s permitted development rights. The rooflights in the front roof slope would not protrude more than 0.15 metres beyond the plane of the slope of the original roof when measured from the perpendicular with the external surface of the original roof and are not higher than the highest part of the original roof. On this basis all of those work

Page 5 would be considered to be permitted development should a certificate of lawfulness be submitted. 2.4. It is acknowledged that a pair of French doors have been installed into the rear dormer and these have a ‘Juliet balcony’. However, this does not create ‘floor area’ that can be walked on and thus is not a balcony in the conventional sense of the word ‘balcony’. It is installed as a security measure to prevent an accident of someone falling through the open doors. As such the dormer window is still considered to be permitted development under Class B and not precluded by way of one of the conditions attached in the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015. 2.5. Also in relation to the roof extension there is a new window inserted into the side gable end. The window serves the stairs to the converted loft area and not a habitable room. It should be noted that there is an existing side facing window serving the existing stairs and this would appear to be a window that was in the side wall when the dwelling was first built as similar dwellings on this side of the road all have this same configuration. This is drawn as a single pane of glass but not annotated as obscure glass. This could be secured by condition should consent be forthcoming. 2.6. Thus, it is considered that in this instance a refusal of the works undertaken to the roof could not be sustained. 2.7. The second element of the application proposes the construction of a side, front and rear single storey extension. This would involve removing the existing detached single garage and Perspex covered area to the rear. 2.8. The proposed rear extension is ‘L’ shaped and would project from the original rear wall of the dwelling some 6m along the common boundary with No. 49. This section of the rear extension would have a width of 4m from that common boundary. At this point it would then project further rearward for another 2.6m at a width of 4.37m. The side wall of the extension then follows the common boundary with No. 45 so that it would project some 1.4m forward of the front corner of the dwelling. The front wall of the extension would have a width of some 5.7m. 2.9. Fenestration is kept to a minimum in the side wall facing No. 45 with a small window proposed that would serve a bathroom. French doors are proposed in the wall of the smaller rear extension with a window in the other rear facing wall. At the front would be a door with glazing panes either side with a window to their left that would serve the study. 2.10. The single storey extension would have a mono-pitched roof at the front. Down the side and around the rear there would be a small sloping roof with a flat area above. The degree of slope to the side and rear roof would follow that at the front. 3. Working with the applicant/agent 3.1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: • In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; • offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter

Page 6 3.2 In this instance the applicant/agent was updated of issues concerning the accuracy of the plans submitted. The applicant/agent responded by submitting amended plans. Which were found to be acceptable and the application was recommended for approval.

Relevant Planning History 3.1. HW/292/58 – Outline application for siting of houses 3.2. HW/410/58 – Estate roads & erection of 68 dwellings 3.3. 14/05911/HPDN - Notification of proposed single storey rear extension; Depth extending from the original rear wall of 6 metres, a maximum height of 2.2 metres and an eaves height of 2.4 metres. Details refused – details submitted insufficient to assess the full impact of the proposed development on the existing dwellinghouse or on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. 3.4. 14/06482/HPDN - Notification of proposed single storey rear extension; depth extending from the original rear wall of 6 metres, a maximum height of 2850 metres and an eaves height of 2600 metres. Details not required to be submitted [would be permitted development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)]. 4. Issues and Policy considerations Principle and Location ALP: G3 (General design policy) CSDPD: CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place-Shaping and Design) 4.1. This is an established residential area and as such there is no objection in principle to extending the dwelling. 4.2. Given that the property has a detached garage that extends as far down the rear garden as the current proposed extension and that the roof alterations and dormer window could as a fall-back position be constructed under the properties permitted development rights, the amended scheme now being proposed is not considered to be unacceptable in principle. The impact of the proposals on the existing dwelling and the street scene/area in general Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G3, G8, H17 & Appendix 4 Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS119 4.3. Given what has already been built on site and that proposed compared to extension/alterations that have been carried out on properties within the immediate vicinity (notably Nos. 45 & 43) the development carried out and that proposed would not appear to adversely impact on the existing dwelling or the street scene/area in general. This is taking into account the view from the public footpath that runs along the rear boundary of the site. 4.4. The ground floor extension is quite large but account should be taken of the fall-back position of what could be built under current planning legislation and the properties permitted development rights, the proposals agreed under 14/06482/HPDN refers (a copy of the plans relating to this application is attached as Appendix B.). It should be noted that this application does not include any of the side extension or the additional projection down the rear garden. 4.5. It is noted that the roof of the dwelling has been entirely re-roofed in large concrete tiles that have replaced smaller dark tiles. This change is at variance to other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. However, this is permitted development under general planning legislation as the dwelling is in an existing residential area with no specific designation i.e. Conservation Area or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Page 7 which may otherwise prevent such works being undertaken without planning permission first being granted. The impact of the proposals on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties

Adopted Local Plan (ALP): H17, G8, Appendix 4; Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS19; 4.6. The other half of this pair of semis has a conservatory across part of its rear and abutting the common boundary with the application site. Thus it is considered that the proposed rear extension complies with light angles in respect of the relationship with this neighbouring property as stated in Appendix 4 of the Adopted Local Plan and as such it is considered not to be adversely affected in terms of any significant loss of light. 4.7. Neither the proposed French doors in the side wall of the larger rearward projection or those in the rear wall of the smaller element are considered to exacerbate the mutual overlooking of the rear garden of the neighbour at No. 49 then that which currently exists on site. The French doors are shown to be inserted in the side wall of the larger section of the proposed rear extension facing No. 49. A condition could also be added to any consent so that these were the sole openings in the side walls unless a formal planning application were received to add further openings. 4.8. In respect to this neighbour (No. 49) the proposed extension is considered not to be dominant and or overbearing given that the proposed development is single storey and the deeper section is located on the opposite side of the application site. 4.9. In relation to the dormer window and roof alterations these are considered not to be detrimental to any of the residential amenities of the neighbour at No. 49. This could be conditioned to be obscurely glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above finished floor level. 4.10. No. 45 is the neighbour to the left (south) and has a Perspex covered area to its side with a detached outbuilding/garage in its rear garden. Taking all of these facts into account no element of the development is considered to be detrimental to any of residential amenities of this neighbour. The one window proposed facing this property serves a bathroom which one would reasonable expect to be obscurely glazed. This could be conditioned should consent be forthcoming. 4.11. There are no adjoining residential properties to the immediate rear of the site to be considered. To conclude the application is considered to accord with adopted policy and to be acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring properties. Parking requirements Adopted Local Plan (ALP): T2 (On-Site Parking and Servicing); Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure); 4.12. Although no annotation has been given as to what rooms the first floor layout plan are used for, the extended property would most probably have 4 bedrooms which generates a maximum requirement for 4 parking spaces as the property is located in Accessibility Zone 3. Should the entire frontage be laid to hard-standing then 3 spaces could be easily accommodated on site. However, these requirements are maximum standards and as the site is located in an urban area, with reasonable access to local facilities and public transport links and no parking restrictions on the road 3 spaces are considered to provide an adequate level of parking to serve the extended property. A condition could be added to consent if granted requiring the 3 rd space to be created on site in the front garden.

Recommendation: Application Permitted

Page 8

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended).

2 This permission is in respect of drawing nos. WDC 1 and WDC 2 received on 08.05.2015 and 003 received on 03.06.2015 Reason: For the sake of clarity, and to ensure a more satisfactory development of the site.

3 The materials to be used for the external surfaces, including walls, roofs, doors and windows shall be of the same colour, type and texture as those now used on the building, unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise first agrees in writing. Reason: To secure a satisfactory external appearance.

4 No further windows, doors or openings of any kind shall be inserted in the flank elevations of the development hereby permitted without the prior, express planning permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of the adjoining properties.

5 Notwithstanding any other details shown on the plans hereby approved, the windows and any other glazing to be inserted in the flank elevation of the extension/dwelling facing No. 49 shall, up to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level, be fixed shut (without any opening mechanism) and glazed in obscure glass. The windows shall thereafter be retained as such. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of this neighbouring property.

6 Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This area shall thereafter be retained for the parking of private vehicles and not used for any other purpose. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off and park clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

* offering a pre-application advice service, * as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, * by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter.

In this instance the applicant/agent was updated of issues concerning the accuracy of the plans submitted. The applicant/agent responded by submitting amended plans. Which were found to be acceptable and the application was recommended for approval.

2 Whilst it would appear from the application that the proposed development is to be entirely within the curtilage of the application site, care should be taken upon the commencement and during the course of building operations to ensure that no part of the development, including the foundations and roof overhang will encroach on, under or over adjoining property.

Page 9 Agenda Item 4. Appendix A

15/05718/FUL APPENDIX A

Consultations and Notification Responses

Ward Councillor Preliminary Comments Councillor L M Clarke OBE – please call to committee if this application is to be approved. The large extension is out of keeping with the character of the area and has been built without planning permission. It can be seen across the valley and looks unsightly and the colour of the building is out of keeping with the area and is unfortunately a blot on the landscape due to its prominence.

Councillor A Hill - I have concerns regarding this extension. It is a blot on the landscape especially from Deeds Grove, I have concerns regarding the building and how it was constructed mostly from wood. If this application is for approval I would like it to go to committee and a site visit to be made.

Parish/Town Council Comments/Internal and External Consultees

High Wycombe Town – Abbey Ward

Representations Four letters have been received objecting on the grounds of:-

• Dormer & roof alterations out of keeping with existing dwelling and those in immediate vicinity • Change of roof tiles • Loss of privacy and overlooking • Over development of the site • Of site parking/highway safety • Potential use as business premises • Constructed /built safely

Officer Note: The penultimate point would be a matter of fact and degree and could be just used as an ‘office’ for personal use. The last point would be dealt with under a building regulations application and is not a material consideration for this planning application.

One letter of support has been received from the immediate neighbour at No. 49.

Page 10 Agenda Item 4. Appendix B

Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Agenda Item 5.

Contact: Emma Crotty DDI No. 01494 421822

App No : 15/05998/FUL App Type: Full Application

Application for : Erection of replacement 5 bed detached dwelling and detached three bay garage/carport with store over (alternative scheme to pp 14/06389/FUL)

At Meadowbrook Cottage, Marsh Lane, Marsh, Buckinghamshire, HP17 8SP

Date Received : 10/04/15 Applicant : Mr & Mrs James Good

Target date for 05/06/15 Decision

1. Summary 1.1. Permission is sought for an alternative scheme for a 5 bed detached dwellinghouse and garage/carport. A similar scheme was granted approval under reference 1/06389/FUL and remains extant. The main differences between the approved scheme and this alternative scheme are the inclusion of accommodation (noted as a store) over the garage and therefore related roof lights and external staircase to serve this; the addition of an open porch over a side door; and fenestration/ material/design alterations for the replacement dwellinghouse. The footprint, location and heights of the buildings would remain as approved under the extant permission. 1.2. The application is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbours. The application is therefore recommended for approval. 2. The Application 2.1. Permission is sought for the erection of a 5 bed dwelling and detached three bay garage with store over as an alternative scheme to planning permission 14/06389/FUL. The previous scheme included the demolition of the original dwellinghouse, which has been undertaken and therefore this permission has been part-implemented. 2.2. To clarify the differences between the approved scheme and proposed scheme consist of:- • Inclusion of a store above the garage, two roof lights in the garage roof and an external staircase to the garage (the footprint, eaves and ridge height of the garage would remain as approved in the extant scheme). • Provision of an open porch over a side door. • Minor alterations to the size of windows throughout/ minor movement in the window locations throughout • Additional roof light in the front elevation • Additional window at first floor level in the rear elevation • Removal of a ground floor window in the side elevation • Chimney to single storey element replaced by a flue • Feather-edged boarding used instead of hanging tiles and other relatively minor changes to the proposed materials 2.3. To confirm, the footprint, location, eaves and ridge heights of the proposed dwellinghouse (except for the addition of a side porch) would remain exactly the same as the approved and extant scheme. 2.4. The application site is located within the village of Marsh. It is a fairly level site with mature boundary treatments. Fields are located to the east and south of the property,

Page 14 Marsh Road to the west and with a residential neighbour located to the north; St Faiths Cottage. A drainage ditch separates these neighbours. 2.5. The application is accompanied by: a) Design and Access Statement b) Ecology Wildlife Checklist 2.6. Amended plans were submitted during the course of the application rotating the staircase to the garage and including screening. 3. Working with the applicant/agent 3.1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter In this instance the applicant/agent was notified about the potential for overlooking of neighbours from the staircase serving the garage. Alternative options were discussed which resulted in amended plans being received turning the staircase and providing screening to it to overcome this concern. Furthermore the agent clarified by email that the staircase would be oak with the screen consisting of high quality vertical oak cladding and photographs were provided to demonstrate the proposed finish of the garage with staircase. To confirm, the applicants are not prepared to provide the staircase internally, nor is it their preference to include the staircase at the opposite end of the garage (i.e. adjacent the road). The application is recommended for approval and it is noted that there is the potential for public speaking against the application at Planning Committee. Should this occur, the applicant/agent will be provided with the opportunity to speak at Planning Committee also if they so wish. 4. Relevant Planning History 4.1. The dwelling is a replacement of an earlier cottage and was approved under planning permission 91/05190/FUL. 4.2. 04/06478/FUL: Erection of barn for dry storage and shelter for young stock. Approved and built. 4.3. 07/07738/FUL: Raising of the roof and other alterations, construction of single storey side extension and two storey rear extension including terrace over new lobby. Approved, not implemented. 4.4. 09/07061/FUL: Construction of all-weather riding arena with 1.5m high fence. Approved and built. 4.5. 14/06389/FUL: Erection of replacement 5 bed detached dwelling and detached three bay garage/carport. Permitted and part-implemented. 4.6. 15/05608/MINAMD: Proposed non-material amendment to permission for Erection of replacement 5 bed detached dwelling and detached three bay garage/carport granted under 14/06389/FUL. Refused. 4.7. 15/05611/MINAMD: Proposed non-material amendment to permission for Erection of replacement 5 bed detached dwelling and detached three bay garage/carport granted under 14/06389/FUL. Refused.

Page 15 5. Issues and Policy considerations 5.1. From representations made, it appears that there has been some confusion over the dimensions of the approved dwellinghouse (ref 14/06389/FUL). To clarify, the height of the approved dwellinghouse and garage exactly matches that shown it this proposal and the dimensions, as scaled from the plans and measured from ground level are: Replacement dwellinghouse: height to eaves 5.75m, height to ridge 9.95m, height to eaves of single storey element 2.25m, height to ridge of single storey element 5.55m Replacement garage: height to eaves: 2.05m, height to ridge 5.75m. 5.2. It is accepted that the original case officer’s report and other Council documents noted that the height to ridge of the dwellinghouse was approximately 9.5m (along with other measurements not as per those noted above). Notwithstanding that the approved scheme already benefits from planning permission, if the application was re-assessed ‘afresh’, including taking into consideration representations received from neighbours including shadow diagrams, the proposal would still be recommended for approval as it remains that the proposed replacement dwellinghouse would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and amenities enjoyed by occupiers of the neighbouring property. 5.3. Given the extant permission, the remainder of this report will assess the acceptability of the differences between the extant scheme and this proposal only, as detailed at 2.2 of this report. Raising the quality of place making and design ALP: G3 (General design policy), G8 (Detailed Design Guidance and Local Amenity), G10 (Landscaping), G11 (Trees), C10 (Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt), C14 (Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside), C15 (Development within Residential Curtilages in the Countryside, Appendix 1, Appendix 4. CSDPD: CS19 (Raising the quality of place shaping and design) 5.4. The amendments to the materials detailed on the previous application and those proposed in this application, along with the fenestration and other design alterations (including additional windows) are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and therefore are considered to be acceptable. 5.5. The agent has confirmed that the staircase and related screening would be of a high quality design and finished in oak, to be in keeping with the remainder of the scheme. External staircases to garages are not considered to be an uncommon structure, particularly in rural environments and given that the staircase would be tucked between the proposed garage and proposed dwellinghouse, with very limited views from the public domain, this element of the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to the impact on the character and appearance of the area and proposed replacement scheme itself. Amenity of existing and future residents ALP: G8 (Detailed design guidance and local amenity), H19 (Residents amenity space and gardens) Appendix 1 CSDPD: CS19 (Raising the quality of place shaping and design) 5.6. The alterations proposed to the main dwellinghouse compared with the extant scheme are not considered to have any impact on the amenity levels of neighbouring residents. 5.7. Considering the proposed use of the first floor level of the garage and associated alterations including the erection of a staircase, this staircase with screening would be located around 11m from the closest window in the neighbouring property. A privacy

Page 16 screen 1.8m in height has been negotiated to be erected around the staircase to limit the opportunity for overlooking of this neighbour when access is gained to/from the first floor of the garage. This would result in the staircase structure being up to 4.25m high (with a width of 0.8m at the top platform). However this distance of 11m is considered sufficient to ensure that the staircase and related screening would not cause any undue overbearing impact or loss of light on this neighbour and the screening would ensure that there would not be any detrimental impact on privacy levels either. It is also noted that there is mature hedging/ trees on the boundary line between the neighbours which would help soften the impact of this staircase element on this neighbouring property. Roof lights proposed in the garage would be located on the front (south) roof slope and therefore would not impact on this neighbouring property. A condition should be included to prevent the addition of roof lights in the northern roof slope. Given that the use of the first floor of the garage building would remain ancillary to the residential use of the proposed replacement dwellinghouse, it is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area and is unlikely to cause an unacceptable level of disturbance or nuisance to neighbours. Infrastructure and Developer Contributions CSDPD: CS21 (Contribution of development to community infrastructure) DSA: DM19 (Infrastructure and delivery) 5.8. The application would be liable for CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy), although the applicant may be able to claim for exemption as a Self-Build Development.

Recommendation: Application Permitted

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended).

2 This permission is in respect of plan nos. 20, 21A, 22A, 23A, 24, 25, 26, 27A 28A, 29A, 30a and 19398. Reason: For the sake of clarity and to ensure an acceptable form of development.

3 The materials to be used for the external finishes of the buildings hereby permitted shall be as specified in the application, or in any alternative which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To secure a satisfactory external appearance.

4 The surfacing materials to be used for the development hereby permitted shall be as specified in the application, or in any alternative which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To secure a satisfactory external appearance.

5 The temporary residential accommodation associated with this development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the details approved under condition 6 of planning permission14/06389/FUL. Thereafter the approved temporary accommodation shall not be brought onto the site more than one month before the development commences and shall be removed within 18 months of the commencement or one month following the occupation of the new dwelling whichever is the sooner, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Having had regard to the applicants need for security at the site and to prevent the establishment of a second permanent residential dwelling on the land which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the open countryside.

Page 17

6 The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the levels details as approved under condition 7 of planning permission 14/06389/FUL. Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining properties and highways.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior, express planning permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

8 The outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be occupied or undertaken in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the existing premises or use and shall at no time be severed and occupied as a separate independent unit. Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a separate independent unit not in accordance with the policies for the area.

9 The upper floor of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the timber boarded screen to the external stair has been implemented in accordance with the details shown on approved drawing no. /30A. The screen shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not adversely affect the privacy and visual amenities at present enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring property.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

• offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter

In this instance the applicant/agent was notified about the potential for overlooking of neighbours from the staircase serving the garage. Alternative options were discussed which resulted in amended plans being received turning the staircase and providing screening to it to overcome this concern. Furthermore the agent clarified by email that the staircase would be oak with the screen consisting of high quality vertical oak cladding and photographs were provided to demonstrate the proposed finish of the garage with staircase. To confirm, the applicants are not prepared to provide the staircase internally, nor is it their preference to include the staircase at the opposite end of the garage (i.e. adjacent the road).

The application is recommended for approval and it is noted that there is the potential for public speaking against the application at Planning Committee. Should this occur, the applicant/agent will be provided with the opportunity to speak at Planning Committee also if they so wish.

Page 18 Agenda Item 5. Appendix A

15/05998/FUL APPENDIX A

Consultations and Notification Responses

Ward Councillor Preliminary Comments The local Ward Member has indicated that he knows both the applicant and the neighbour and would want the interests of both parties to be carefully considered in light of the changes to the previously approved scheme. [Officer Note In this instance, the Head of Planning Services has concluded that the application ought to be considered by the Planning Committee}

Parish/Town Council Comments/Internal and External Consultees

Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh Parish Council Comments: No comments received.

Representations Summary of comments received from the neighbour objecting on the following grounds. Please note that these comments were received following re-consultation on amended plans.

- The proposed timber boarded screen surrounding the external stairs is more akin to a ‘look out’ tower directly viewed from windows in the property (kitchen and study) especially in winter months when the boundary hedge has shed its leaves. Impact will be huge. - Concern that at a later stage an attempt will be made to link the house and garage by a covered structure. - Revised plans show drainage to the garage block, this appears to be unnecessary for the proposed use and it is presumed a condition requiring the garage to be retained for the stated purpose. - Due to the ad-hoc nature of the proposed use, the positioning of the staircase should not matter and an internal staircase should suffice. - Shadow diagrams demonstrate that the neighbouring property would be severely affected by the proposed development. - It seems officers and neighbours were misled regarding size of property in the original application as the plans presented internal heights rather than external dimensions, as demonstrated in the planning officer’s report. - Any external light introduced to the staircase light introduced to the staircase would be an unwelcome addition to our quiet rural enjoyment. - The most suitable position for the staircase is within the garage block itself which should be able to be accommodated given the size of the garage. - Neighbours would reluctantly agree for the staircase to be installed on the opposite side of the garage which wold have a reduced impact on neighbours compared with proposed scheme. - Request Council scrutinise in great detail the application drawings to avoid any further misrepresentation. - Request conditions are included in relation to permitted development rights for further extensions, actual external heights are clearly shown on revised plans and garage block to be used as stated in application.

Page 19 Agenda Item 5. Appendix B

Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Agenda Item 6.

Contact: Lucy Bellinger DDI No. 01494 421525

App No : 14/06162/OUT App Type: Outline Application

Application for : Outline application (Including details of access) for the erection of up to 192 dwellings and public open space

At OS Parcel 8784, Mill Lane, Monks Risborough, Buckinghamshire

Date Received : 02/05/14 Applicant : Gladman Developments Ltd

01/08/14 Target date for Decision

1. Summary 1.1. The applicant has lodged an appeal against the non-determination of the application. The Local Planning Authority has received formal notification from the Planning Inspectorate of a valid appeal. The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore issue a decision on the application but needs to provide an indication of what the recommendation would have been had the Authority been in a position to determine this application. 1.2. The key planning issues are assessed in detail and the following provides a brief summary of the report 1.3. Principle of housing development – The site is located outside of the settlement of Princes Risborough where new housing development is not identified within the development plan. Currently the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites against emerging objectively assessed housing need. As such relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered to be up-to-date and the proposal needs to be assessed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 1.4. Housing mix and affordable housing - The scheme would include provision of affordable housing which would weigh in favour of the proposal. However in the absence of a legal agreement the delivery of affordable housing has not been secured. 1.5. Agricultural issues – The scheme would result in the loss of economic and other benefits associated with the best and most versatile agricultural land. 1.6. Design and landscape issues – The development would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the adjacent Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The quantum of development cannot be accommodated on the site in an acceptable good design to mitigate the landscape harm. 1.7. Sustainable transport development – the proposed development could be suitable in transport sustainability terms subject to mitigation to promote sustainable travel. However, in the absence of a legal agreement the development would fail to maximise sustainable transport modes. 1.8. Ecology and nature conservation - The development is considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of planning conditions. 1.9. Archaeological issues - The proposal has demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact in this respect. 1.10. Contamination, drainage, flooding and pollution – The development would fail the sequential test. The development would increase the risk of flooding from surface water. In relation to pollution and contamination the development would be acceptable subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

Page 28 1.11. Building sustainability – Subject to the imposition of planning conditions the development can incorporate appropriate renewable energy and water efficiency measures. 1.12. Open Space and play provision - The proposal will include appropriate provision to serve the needs of occupants of the development. In the absence of a legal agreement there are no proposals for the delivery, future management and maintenance of the open space. 1.13. Infrastructure and developer contributions - The applicant has not indicated a willingness to enter a legal agreement to secure necessary contributions or other necessary works not secured through CIL. No legal agreement has been progressed.

1.14. Officers recommend that had the local planning authority been in a position to determine the application that it would have been recommended for refusal. The recommendation is “minded to refuse”. The development is considered to be contrary to the development plan and the benefits of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh adverse impacts. The proposal would not constitute sustainable development. 2. The Application 2.1. The application is in outline with the detail of access submitted, to develop 8.2 hectares of land for:- • Up to 192 dwellings at approximately 35 dwellings per hectare • One new vehicle access off Mill Lane • Local play area(s) 2.2. The proposed access layout is shown on drawing 4746/21/01. A development framework drawing, 5692-L-02 Rev E is also submitted and the Design and Access Statement includes an illustrative masterplan, figure 11. The applicant has confirmed in writing that the development framework drawing and the illustrative masterplan are both illustrative drawings and therefore will not have any status as part of any planning decision. The illustrative drawings would serve as a means to assess whether the quantum of development can be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory manner and would not establish where dwellings, roads or open space would be located within the application site. Aspects such as layout and design would be formally determined as part of reserved matters applications if outline planning permission is forthcoming. 2.3. The application is accompanied by: a) Planning Statement b) Design and Access Statement c) Transport Assessment d) Travel Plan e) Statement of Community Involvement f) Landscape and Visual Assessment g) Flood Risk Assessment h) Ecology/Biodiversity Report i) Arboricultural Report j) Phase 1 Site Investigation report k) Air Quality Report l) Noise Assessment m) Archaeology Report n) Agricultural Land and Use Report o) Foul Drainage Report p) Affordable Housing Statement q) Socio Economic Report 2.4. The application has been amended in that the quantum of development proposed has been reduced from “up to 210 units” to “up to 192 dwellings”. The applicant has Page 29 amended the development framework drawing accordingly and the description of development has also been amended. 2.5. The development has been screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the local planning authority has concluded that an environmental impact assessment will not be required in this case. 2.6. The application does not require referral to the Secretary of State. 2.7. The applicant has carried out a community consultation exercise which has included leaflets distributed to the local community and a website for comments. The Council has also widely consulted on the planning application and the responses are summarised in Appendix A of this report and are available in full on our web site. 3. Working with the applicant/agent 3.1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter 3.2. In this instance: • The applicant/agent was provided with pre-application advice, • The applicant was provided the opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme/address issues. • The application was considered by the Planning Committee. 4. Relevant Planning History 4.1. There is no planning history for the application site. 5. Issues and Policy considerations Planning policy framework 5.1. In considering the application, regard must be had to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5.2. In addition regard must be had to Section 143 of the Localism Act, which relates to the determination of planning applications. It states that in dealing with planning applications, the authority shall have regard to: a) Provision of the development plan insofar as they are material, b) Any local finance considerations, so far as they are material to the application, c) Any other material consideration. Any local finance consideration means; • a grant or other financial assistance that has been or will or could be provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, • sums a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of community infrastructure levy. 5.3. The relevant financial considerations in this instance will be CIL and New Homes Bonus. 5.4. For the purposes of considering this application the relevant parts of the Development Plan are the Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (July 2008), the Page 30 Wycombe District Local Plan (January 2004) and the Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (July 2013). 5.5. Other material considerations which need to be taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the CIL Regulations, the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Princes Risborough Expansion: Issues and Responses Report (draft Dec 2014, Tibbalds). This report has been prepared to explore the potential expansion of Princes Risborough to support the emerging Local Plan and provide a sound basis for the expansion of the town. In addition work has commenced on the new Wycombe District Local Plan but it is at a relatively early stage in its preparation, with a major options consultation undertaken in early 2014. The Council in March agreed to prepare an area action plan (mini local plan) for Princes Risborough in advance of the Local Plan. 5.6. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means that where the development plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. 5.7. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The first issue to consider is whether the local planning authority can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Housing supply and need Adopted Local Plan (ALP): H2 (Housing Allocations), H4 (Phasing of New Housing Development), C9 (Settlements beyond the Green Belt) Core Strategy: CS1 (Overarching principles - sustainable development), CS2 (Main principles for location of development), CS6 (Princes Risborough), CS7 (Rural Settlements and Rural Areas), CS8 (Reserve Locations for Future Development), CS12 (Housing provision) 5.8 Policy CS12 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out a housing requirement for the District of 8,050 dwellings for the period 2006-26 and of this 810 dwellings are required to be built in the northern part of the District (of which at least 480 should be built at Princes Risborough) over the same period. Policy CS2 indicates that development in the rural settlements and areas identified in Policy CS7 will be of a smaller scale and of a character commensurate with the size and relative sustainability of the settlements.

5.9 To boost significantly the supply of housing, the NPPF (published in 2012 well after the Core Strategy was adopted in 2008) identifies that Councils should ensure that their local plans meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area as far as is consistent with the policies of the NPPF.

5.10 Paragraph 47-49 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of either 5% or 20% (moved onward from later in the plan period), to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (paragraph 14).

5.11 The Council’s current position in relation to the 5 year housing land supply is set out in the Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report (May 2014). The Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in July 2008 and sets out in Policy CS12 a housing target of 8,050 dwellings for the period 2006-26, or 402.5 dwellings per annum (net). Taking account

Page 31 of completions since the start of the Plan period the annual requirement has been adjusted to 1,735 dwellings for the 5 year period April 2014 to March 2019. Given the Council’s over-delivery of housing against target since the start of the plan period, the Council considers that only a 5% uplift to this requirement should be added to accord with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the NPPF resulting in a 5 year requirement of 1,822.

5.12 The Council has identified a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites of 2,447 dwellings. This exceeds the 5 year requirement by 712 dwellings and is equivalent to 7.1 years supply or 41% more than required.

5.13 The Council’s Core Strategy housing target was established in the context of the requirement set out in the South East Plan which has now been abolished. The Council has commenced work on a New Local Plan and has published a draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (January 2014). It tested a range of scenarios resulting in an objectively assessed housing need broadly in the range 500 – 700 homes per year for the period 2011-31, and concluded that the best estimate of objectively assessed need was in the range 550 – 600 homes per year. Further work is now being undertaken in a Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment for districts within the ‘Central Buckinghamshire’ Housing Market Area (consisting of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern District and Wycombe District). This will take account of the latest demographic data and guidance, including the recently published 2012 based household projections from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

5.14 The draft SHMA was undertaken before the final version the Planning Practice Guidance was published. The guidance identifies that where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided on the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered, but weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact that they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints. Appeal decisions and court decisions during 2014 started to take the objectively assessed need as the starting point for considering the 5 year housing land supply.

5.15 A Ministerial letter to the Planning Inspectorate in December 2014 identifies that the outcome of a SHMA is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans and that housing numbers in existing Local Plans are not immediately invalidated. The Ministerial letter goes on to state Councils will need to considered whether there are environmental and policy constraint, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their overall final housing requirement. In the case of Wycombe district such constraints are relevant. Consideration also needs to be given for opportunities to co-operate with neighbouring planning authorities to meet needs across the housing market area.

5.16 Options work and consultation on the new Local Plan has identified a major difficulty in meeting all this objectively assessed need given the extent of national constraints identified in footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF that exist in the District, notably Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In this regard the Council is actively working with other relevant authorities as part of the Duty to Cooperate.

5.17 Based on the findings of the draft SHMA, 550 - 600 homes per year are required, plus an additional 5% buffer in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF, resulting in a requirement of 578 – 630 homes per year. Using the current base date of 2011, a total of 1,167 have been built, resulting in a shortfall between 483 – 633 dwellings at March 2014.

5.18 The Council’s Cabinet on 17th November 2014 confirmed its decision of 20th October to release the 5 reserve sites identified in the current Core Strategy (Policy CS8) for

Page 32 development, where the principle for development had already been agreed, to help address the 5 year housing land supply issue. The Council is planning positively to help address the 5 year housing land supply issue.

5.19 Due to the lead in time to bring the sites forward, including the preparation of development briefs, outline and reserved matters applications and site preparation works, it is considered that the first housing completions are not likely to occur until 2017. This would make a significant contribution to reducing the gap between the 5 year housing requirement and the supply but is unlikely to close the gap entirely.

5.20 It is important to bear in mind that the 5 year housing land supply is a rolling requirement. This means that each year we have to update the requirement and re- assess the supply for the next 5 years, so a new assessment will be undertaken in the first half of 2015 based on the 5 year period 2015-20 and will take account of emerging updated housing needs figures emerging from the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment. This assessment will be published later in the summer or early autumn.

5.21 Having regard to the factors set out above, it is concluded that at this point in time the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply when assessed against the emerging objectively assessed need for the new Local Plan (2014 SHMA).

5.22 Until the forthcoming Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment work is completed, and various factors including constraints and duty to co-operate issues have been taken into account, the housing requirement for the District is unknown.

5.23 The Council has to have regard to the overall five year housing land supply position and the contribution that this proposal could make towards it. Whilst the site would make a contribution to the supply, a number of deliverability issues have been identified, which is likely to result in a slow delivery and put into question whether housing would be delivered on the site within five years. This includes the crossing of the railway line by way of a new footbridge and the possible implementation of dual tracking of the railway line. The housing delivery needs to be weighed with other planning considerations set out within this report and assess whether the contribution to the five year housing land supply would significantly outweigh any adverse impacts. Principle of location and distribution of development within the District Adopted Local Plan (ALP): C9 (Settlements beyond the Green Belt) Core Strategy (CS): CS2 (Main Principles for the Location of Development), CS6 (Princes Risborough), CS7 (Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas) 5.24 The site is located on land designated as countryside beyond the Green Belt, covered by policy C9 of the Local Plan. Policy C9 seeks to ensure that a number of settlements beyond the Green Belt including Princes Risborough do not expand beyond their existing limits in order to protect the countryside from development.

5.25 The locational focus for new development within the District has been to optimise the use of brownfield land and bring these forward before greenfield sites and development being focused on town centres, particularly High Wycombe and locations most accessible by non-car modes. Policy CS2 expands upon this and highlights that in respect of Princes Risborough development will be of a smaller scale and of a character commensurate with the size and relative sustainability of settlements. There is a specific policy in the Core Strategy, CS6 which outlines the planning strategy for Princes Risborough which has an overarching aim of strengthening it as a vibrant market town and addressing specific issues identified in the town. The assessment of the development against policy CS6 is provided elsewhere within this report.

Page 33 5.26 The Council has been planning positively for the future of the District and finding the most sustainable way of accommodating development and has a track record of successful plan making and delivering development. Following the publication of the NPPF in 2012, the Council has responded by starting work on a new local plan.

5.27 In February - April 2014 the Council undertook a major options consultation on the New Local Plan. The big challenge is achieving sustainable development with the potential scale of new housing development to be accommodated in the District up to 2031, given the emerging picture on the Government’s approach to assessing housing called Objectively Assessed Need.

5.28 The Options Consultation identified six main options for where new housing could go which broadly fell into two groups:-
Sites that we know about and can be broadly quantified (Options 1, 2 & 3)
New options for further investigation (Options 4, 5 & 6)
Option 6 was for major expansion of Princes Risborough on greenfield land on the western side of the town.

5.29 The consultation identified 3 options for different scales of growth at Princes Risborough, all involving expansion on the western side of the town beyond the Aylesbury railway line: • Low growth – around 400 homes - located on the Park Mill Farm site • Medium growth – around 1,000 homes • Very major expansion – up to 2,500 homes

5.30 The application site was identified as one of 3 main sites that could make up the medium growth option and was included in the area of search for the high growth options. The site is not constrained by protective designations such as Green Belt or AONB. However, flooding issues have been identified that are discussed further below.

Comprehensive proper planning

5.31 The NPPF (para 17) sets out core planning principles for the planning system, the first of which is that planning should be genuinely plan-led. By dealing with planning applications, such as this, on land identified as part of the potential expansion of Princes Risborough in advance of the local plan process to the planning of growth and expansion, particularly in relation to meeting infrastructure needs will be unco- ordinated. The Council’s key objective is to deliver “sustainable” development which in the best interests of the local community and should be planned in a way that delivers the right development and infrastructure and is fully integrated with the existing settlement. This will not be achieved through a piecemeal approach.

5.32 To speed up the plan making process and housing delivery, the Council in March agreed to prepare an area action plan (mini local plan) for Princes Risborough in advance of the Local Plan. The proposed timetable is as follows:- • Consult on the emerging growth scenario July 2015 • Consult on options/preferred options in October- November 2015 • Consult on a draft plan in April-May 2016 • Publish a proposed submission plan in August-September 2016 • Plan hearings in January 2017 • Adoption in July 2017

5.33 The potential expansion of Princes Risborough presents an opportunity to plan the town’s future in a comprehensive and well-coordinated way. The objective for any expansion of Princes Risborough in terms of “good planning” should be to deliver sustainable development which is properly supported by the right infrastructure, is Page 34 fully integrated with the existing settlement and has been shaped through community engagement. This will be difficult to achieve if delivered in a piecemeal way through the development management process.

5.34 A key issue for the expansion of Princes Risborough is the need for comprehensively planned development given the complex pattern of multiple land ownership. Latest work on issues related to the expansion of Princes Risborough to the north west indicates that a substantial area will be needed for green infrastructure. Emerging master planning work indicates that the land at Mill Lane would be best used as strategic green space and part of a green corridor which would run through the land to the north of Princes Risborough providing informal and formal open space. Given the known flooding and landscape sensitivities of the application site the use of the land for strategic open space provision would be the optimal use of the land.

5.35 If the current planning application were permitted it could prejudice the proper planning of the area and the ability to comprehensively plan for the expansion of Princes Risborough to the north west. It is acknowledged that this would not be in strict compliance with national guidance contained in the NPPG in relation to prematurity. The NPPG highlights two circumstances where prematurity is likely to justify a refusal of planning permission but it does not say that these are the only circumstances or determinatives. In this instance, to grant permission for the proposed development could undermine and prejudice the plan making process by pre-determining and prejudicing proper planning decisions/master planning for new development to the north west of Princes Risborough. Location of the site relative to local services 5.36 The location of a site in terms of links to public transport and services and facilities is a dimension of sustainable development. The site is located to the west of the railway line which provides a defining boundary between the existing residential areas of Monks Risborough and Princes Risborough and the open countryside beyond. However, there is existing housing to the west of the railway line within the cul-de-sac of Kingsmead which is adjacent to the western boundary of the application site. However Kingsmead stands out as being a rather unexpected location for a street of housing.

5.37 The site is located about 975m walking distance of a bus stop whilst Monks Risborough railway station is approx. 200m from the site. Monks Risborough Primary School is a walking distance of 900m but the pedestrian route to the school is by a narrow and in places incomplete footway. The provision of a pavement would be feasible along Mill Lane given that there is verge within the ownership of the County Highway Authority. The nearest convenience shop would be 670m on Place Farm Way whilst a supermarket and Princes Risborough town centre would be approx. 1500m. These distances would be greater for future residents living further into the site.

5.38 National guidance within Manual for Streets advocates that walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes (up to about 800m) walking distance, but emphasises that the propensity to walk is also influenced by the quality of the walking experience. Whilst the document “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot” (IHT 2000) contains guidance on acceptable walking distances:-

Town centres Commuting/school/sightseeing Elsewhere (m) (m) (m)

Desirable 200 500 400

Page 35 Acceptable 400 1000 800

Preferred 800 2000 1200 maximum

Source: CIHT Providing for Journeys on Foot 5.39 It is considered that local routes for pedestrians would be considered to be safe (subject to widening of footway under railway bridge and creation of missing footway on Mill Lane which could be secured as off-site highway works), direct and relatively attractive passing through residential areas rather than alongside a busy road. Although the distances would be marginally in excess of the guidelines it is considered that on balance local facilities would not be too far as to discourage walking as an option.

5.40 In respect of cycling, the locality is relatively flat which would make cycling a feasible option for short trips but routes are on-road. It is considered necessary that the development provides improvements for cycle connectivity between the site and Princes Risborough and the County Highway Authority have suggested a number of local improvements to ensure that the development is acceptable in sustainable transport terms and links with existing cycle network routes.

5.41 The proposal would retain the public right of way through the site which would provide access for new residents to the open countryside and recreational activity. However there are specific issues about the safety of some routes, notably the crossing of the railway line which is addressed elsewhere within this report.

5.42 The accessibility of the site to public transport is covered within the sustainable transport section of this report. Contribution to economic growth Adopted Local Plan (ALP): C9 (Settlements beyond the Green Belt Core Strategy (CS): CS2 (Main Principles for the Location of Development), CS6 (Princes Risborough) 5.43 The proposed development would bring some short term benefits during the construction phase in terms of employment and possibly an increase in local spending. The new residents would increase the potential for spending in local shops and could improve the viability and vitality of Princes Risborough town centre.

5.44 The Council would benefit from the New Homes Bonus. However, this would not be unique to this development and would be applicable to other residential developments.

Fit with Core Strategy vision for Princes Risborough Core Strategy (CS): CS6 (Princes Risborough)

5.45 Policy CS6 (Princes Risborough) sets out a number of objectives expanding upon the spatial vision for the town set out at the beginning of the Core Strategy. Although CS6 is not essentially a development management policy but one which guides future policy making it is important to review the application in the context of policy CS6. Housing (min 480 dwellings 2006-26), particularly affordable housing including for younger people 5.46 The proposal would contribute towards providing new dwellings. The proposal would provide some affordable housing as would other sites within the town albeit that this

Page 36 application is likely to provide a higher overall amount of affordable housing than other sites identified in the town by virtue of its size and fact that it is greenfield land thereby requiring provision at 40% rather than 30%. Reinforce Local Schools and Provide Facilities for Young People 5.47 Advice from the County Council indicates that schools are not suffering from falling school rolls and instead there would be a shortage of school places at primary level requiring developer contributions as a result of the proposed development (see below).

5.48 In terms of facilities for young people the proposal makes no direct provision of facilities for younger people, but this would generally be covered by CIL. Improve built sports facilities and open space provision 5.49 The proposal makes no direct provision of built sports facilities but would include provision of open space which would be of benefit to residents of the development and wider community. Sewage treatment works capacity 5.50 The recent upgrade to the Princes Risborough sewage treatment works means this is no longer an issue for the town for the scale of development proposed in this application. However, Thames Water has identified a local issue with capacity of both waste and water infrastructure to serve the development. This would need to be addressed by way of a Grampian 1 planning condition. Economy 5.51 Other than temporary construction jobs the direct economic impacts of the proposals are limited in relation to the scale of the proposed development. Enhanced use of town centre retail facilities from the additional population associated with the development is likely to help support town centre business to some extent. Transport and Access 5.52 This is examined in more detail later in this report. However, in relation to the issues raised in this policy, issues relating to the A4010 and the High Street are not addressed by the development. Indeed, there remain outstanding issues about the impact of the development on the A4010. A number of pedestrian and cycle enhancements have been suggested by the County Highway Authority but in the absence of a S106 to secure these works the development would not maximise accessibility to sustainable transport modes. Develop new tourist facilities 5.53 This proposal does not provide any new tourist facilities. Encourage limited new retail development in or on the edge or the town centre 5.54 Given the site’s location, the proposal cannot be expected to do this. Safeguard the Historic Core and Chiltern escarpment setting 5.55 The proposal does not adversely affect the historic core of the town, but views from the escarpment will be affected. Maintain Accessibility to the town centre and improve interconnectivity between key parts of the town 5.56 The proposal would deliver some localised improvements to walking and cycling provision but no improvement to public transport connectivity across the town.

1 A planning condition that prevents the start of development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. Page 37

Affordable Housing and Housing Mix ALP: H9 (Creating balanced communities) CSDPD: CS13 (Affordable housing and housing mix), CS21 (Contribution of development to community infrastructure) Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (POSPD) 5.57 Core Strategy Policy CS13 states that on greenfield land at least 40% of the total bedspaces within new developments be affordable dwellings. For the purposes of this policy, the definition of “bedspaces” is set out within the adopted Planning Obligations SPD.

5.58 Policy CS13 also expects that new housing development will provide for a mix of dwelling size, type and tenure that meet the identified housing needs of the community which is also echoed within Local Plan policy H9.

5.59 The application is supported by an Affordable Housing Statement which states that the applicant proposes to comply with development plan policy of seeking 40% affordable housing. The report highlights that 40% of the units are proposed as affordable housing but it recognises that the policy is expressed in bedspaces rather than units. Ensuring the provision of affordable housing within the development in accordance with development plan policy can be adequately secured by way of a planning obligation if planning permission is forthcoming. If planning permission were not forthcoming and in the absence of a legal agreement, the failure of the scheme to secure the provision of affordable housing would constitute a reason for refusal. Officers consider that this matter could be addressed in the event of an appeal were the applicant willing to enter into a legal agreement.

5.60 An indicative housing mix is set out within the Socio Economic Report. In view of the outline nature of the application, the matter of housing mix would be secured by way of a planning condition if planning permission were forthcoming. Sustainable transport development, highway capacity, access, car parking, provision for public access, cyclists and pedestrians. ALP: T2 (On – site parking and servicing), T4 (Pedestrian movement and provision), T5 and T6 (Cycling) CSDPD: CS6 (Princes Risborough), CS16 (Transport), CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure), CS21 (Contribution of development to community infrastructure) DSA: DM2 (Transport requirements of development sites) 5.61 A Core Planning Principle of the NPPF is to: “Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable” (NPPF paragraph 17). 5.62 The NPPF highlights that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, thereby giving people a real choice about how they travel. Paragraph 32 states that decisions on planning applications should take account of whether:-
Opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;
Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and
Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development

Page 38 should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

5.63 Paragraph 34 goes on to emphasise the need to locate development where the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

5.64 Development plan policy in respect of sustainable transport is contained within policies CS16 and CS20.

5.65 At a more detailed level policy DM2 sets out the transport requirements of development which are of a scale that require a Transport Assessment. This application has been accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Highway network capacity 5.66 The County Highway Authority has confirmed that the analysis of local junctions is sound and based upon surveys. However, the Highway Authority requested analysis of the A4010 and A4129 Aylesbury Road/Longwick Road, New Road/Duke Street junction (Tesco roundabout) as it is known that this junction is sensitive to additional capacity pressures.

5.67 The development will have an impact on capacity at this junction. The Highway Authority has requested a financial contribution towards the design/implementation of highway capacity improvements which has been agreed in principle by the applicant. However, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure mitigation, the development would cause unacceptable traffic congestion at the Aylesbury Road/New Road/Longwick Road/Duke Street roundabout junction. Means of access 5.68 The matter of means of access is to be determined as part of the application. The application proposes the creation of a new vehicle access onto Mill Lane which is illustrated on drawing 4746/21/01. Vehicle access will be created by way of a new junction with a carriageway width of 5.5 m with footways either side of the new access road. The County Highway Authority is satisfied that the new access can achieve appropriate visibility splays. As such the proposed means of access to the site is acceptable. Detail of the means of access will need to be the subject of planning conditions to ensure that the access is constructed in an appropriate manner and implemented upon commencement of the development. Travel Plan 5.69 A Travel Plan framework has been submitted as part of the application which will encourage and include appropriate measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel. The approval of a detailed travel plan would need to be secured within a legal agreement. Railway crossing and public rights of way 5.70 There is a public right of way (Public footpath 30 Princes Risborough) which runs through the site from Mill Lane. This footpath provides pedestrian access from Monks Risborough in a north-westerly direction towards Meadle and links with another footpath (Public Footpath 31 Princes Risborough) which crosses the railway by means of an “at grade” crossing providing a circular route into Monks Risborough. It also links to the south with Bridleway 39 which connects the hamlet of Alscot, Longwick Road and Mill Lane.

5.71 Policy CS20 expects that development proposals ensure that the convenient use and enjoyment of existing public rights of way are not affected by development whilst policy DM2 requires the provision wherever possible of walking routes which are designed as safe, direct, attractive & convenient.

Page 39

5.72 The illustrative development framework drawing (5692-L-02 E) indicates the retention of the existing diagonal right of way which is shown set within a green corridor. The retention of the existing route of the right of way within the development is supported as this would maintain direct pedestrian access to the wider rights of way network. As the proposal is in outline form, future reserved matters applications will need to address the successful integration of the existing right of way footpath within the layout.

5.73 The development provides the opportunity to improve and upgrade the existing public right of way within the site by increasing its walking width to at least 3m and by laying a formal surface. This would ensure convenient and attractive passage for pedestrians to maximise walking opportunities. If planning permission is forthcoming it is considered necessary to be subject to a planning condition requiring the provision of a formally surfaced walking width of at least 3m along the existing public footpath (Public Footpath 30). Railway crossing 5.74 Network Rail have raised an objection on the grounds that the development would increase the type and volume of people using the existing at grade railway crossing, which in turn would increase risk. Network Rail would seek closure of the existing crossing and the installation of a bridge instead as a means to safely cross the railway line. A simple closure of the existing right of way/railway crossing would not be acceptable as it would compromise access to, convenience and enjoyment of the local rights of way network and wider countryside. In the absence of a railway bridge the only alternative option to cross the railway would be to divert pedestrians via Crowbrook Road and Mill Lane but this alternative would not be acceptable as it would be too long and inconvenient for pedestrians, reducing the options for circular walking and convenient onward connections.

5.75 The railway line between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough forms part of the East West Rail project. Part of this project will involve increasing the frequency of service and line speed along the route. Network Rail has advised that current timetabling modelling proposes that dual track through Monks Risborough may be needed as part of this project. Any double tracking would require land take which will involve the application site. Land take from the application site will also be needed for an additional platform, bridge or underpass to connect the platforms, means of escape and off-street station car parking. Mill Lane railway bridge will also need to be rebuilt.

5.76 Network Rail has expressed a concern that the proposed development will impact upon the delivery of dual tracking and should be rejected and modified to safeguard the future development of the railway line. If planning permission was granted for the development, officers consider that it risks prejudicing and frustrate the delivery of the East West Rail project/double tracking.

5.77 Grampian conditions 2 can sometimes be used to deliver works, such as a railway bridge, which would be on land outside of the applicant’s control. At this stage there is no agreement with 3 rd party landowners to provide the land to deliver the bridge, which adds uncertainty to the applicant being able to satisfy the requirements of a Grampian condition within a reasonable timeframe. The dual tracking of the railway line would affect the span and design of a footbridge which adds further uncertainty to the delivery timing of a new footbridge and whether a Grampian planning condition would be resolved within an appropriate and reasonable timeframe.

2 A planning condition that prevents the start of development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. Page 40 5.78 The issues surrounding dual tracking and delivery of a new railway bridge puts into question the benefit that the development would contribute in terms of five year housing supply. Given the current uncertainties there is no guarantee that the housing will be delivered on the site within five years, which counteracts the benefit of the proposal in terms of housing provision.

5.79 As it stands the proposal would fail to demonstrate that safe, convenient and attractive access on foot can be achieved across the Aylesbury railway line. The proposal would therefore fail to maximise opportunities for walking as an alternative means of transport to the car and closure of the existing crossing would have an impact upon the existing rights of way network and enjoyment of the countryside for recreation.

5.80 Secondly, the proposal would impinge on land that may be required to double track the railway line and associated ancillary works. The development might therefore fail to safeguard the future development of strategic rail infrastructure and improvements to maximise sustainable transport modes. Public transport 5.81 The site is served by the Risborough Area Community Bus which is a limited service that connects smaller communities around Princes Risborough to the town centre. The nearest bus stop to access a high frequency service bus service is located approximately 975m away on the Aylesbury Road (300/321 Aylesbury to High Wycombe route). The site is also served by the Risborough Area Community Bus which provides a service to the town centre but of limited frequency and outside of peak hours (six services per day Monday to Friday but three mornings only services on Wednesday and Saturday).

5.82 The site would be within walking distance of Monks Risborough railway station which provides an option for journeys to Aylesbury, Princes Risborough and London. There is roughly an hourly service and there are early commuter train options albeit limited frequency.

5.83 Although the frequency of the bus service on the Aylesbury Road (service 300/321) would comply with the requirements of policy DM2 it would be beyond the recommended walking distance of 400m to constitute a high quality, fully accessible, attractive public transport service. However taking account of the closeness of the site to Monks Risborough railway station, existence of the Community Bus, safe direct, attractive and convenient walking and cycling routes (subject to localised footway upgrades) it is considered that the site would be served by an adequate choice of sustainable transport modes so as not be overly reliant on the private car for travel.

5.84 In this respect the proposal would accord with development plan policy and the NPPF in relation to sustainable transport. However, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a package of mitigation measures, the development would fail to maximise accessibility to the site by sustainable modes of transport. This would constitute a reason for refusal, albeit one that could be overcome if the applicant entered into a legal agreement. Raising the quality of place making and design ALP: G3 (General design policy), G7 (Development in relation to topography), G8 (Detailed Design Guidance and Local Amenity), G10 (Landscaping), G11 (Trees), G26 (Designing for safer communities), Appendix 1 CSDPD: CS19 (Raising the quality of place shaping and design) DSA: DM11 (Green networks and infrastructure), DM16 (Open space in new development)

Page 41 5.85 The creation of a high quality built environment and protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment are identified as dimensions of sustainable development as set out within the NPPF. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

5.86 At the outline stage, the issue to assess is whether the site can accommodate the level of development proposed taking into account site constraints and other land requirements, such as the provision of public open space.

5.87 The planning application is in outline form and therefore details such as layout, appearance and scale are not submitted for consideration. However, the quantum of development is specified as being up to 192 dwellings and the illustrative development framework drawing (ref 5692-L-02 Rev F) shows that residential development comprising 5.5 ha of the site area which would equate to an average density of 35 dwellings per hectare.

5.88 The Strategic Sites Assessment Study (WDC February 2014) which was a background paper to the Local Plan Options Consultation assessed that the development capacity of the site assuming a density of 35 dph would be in the region of 160 dwellings. This is on the basis of a developable residential area of 4.6 hectares and incorporating 1.9 ha of open space. The developable portion of the site is less than proposed by the application as the Strategic Site Assessment Study assumed built form would be concentrated on the eastern portion of the site, thereby avoiding placing development on the more visually sensitive parts of the site.

5.89 Taking account of the public open space requirement of 2.24 ha this would leave a developable area of 5.93 ha which on the basis of a maximum of 192 dwellings would equate to a density of 32 dph.

5.90 The density of surrounding development ranges between approximately 12 dph (Mill Lane and Crowbrook Road), 14 dph (Kingsmead) and 30 dph (St Dunstans Close). The potential density of the proposed development would be higher than existing surrounding residential development, but 32 dph is not regarded as a high density.

5.91 The illustrative masterplan within the Design and Access Statement provides an indication of how the quantum of development could be accommodated on the site. It is considered that the indicative layout would require amendment to be acceptable for example:-
Dwellings appear quite close to the railway line
The indicative layout includes several cul-de-sacs which should be replaced with connected streets to aid legibility and permeability
Some of the perimeter blocks appear small which could result in a rather fragmented layout
Dwellings at the front of the site are illustrated as being quite distant from Mill Lane which would not be reflective of the existing pattern of adjacent development
Dwellings would be placed within areas at risk of surface water flooding
Dwellings would be placed close to the ordinary watercourse which boarders the site
Dwellings would be placed within the visually more sensitive northern and north western parts of the site

5.92 While the overall density of 32 dph would not be regarded as high, the above constraints and flooding and landscape constraints would result in the developable housing area being reduced thereby increasing the net density which would have implications for the density of the development, in that the development would appear denser than 32 dph suggests.

Page 42

5.93 In summary, it is considered that given the constraints posed by surface water flooding insufficient information has been provided to confirm that the quantum of dwellings and provision of open space can be acceptably accommodated on the site in a manner compatible with the local context and achieve a good quality design and layout. Landscape and visual Impact ALP: L1 (Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), L2 (Areas of Attractive Landscape and Local Landscape Areas) CSDPD: CS17 (Environmental Assets) 5.94 The site is not located within the Chilterns AONB, however Local Plan policy L1 states that development will not be permitted which although itself not located within the AONB would have a demonstrably detrimental effect on its special character or appearance, whilst Core Strategy policy CS17 requires the conservation and enhancement of the Chilterns AONB.

5.95 The site currently comprises a single arable field crossed by a public right of way. Whilst the site adjoins the settlement to the east it is clearly separated from it by the railway line. However, the existence of Kingsmead, a cul-de-sac of over 40 houses weakens the impression of separation and currently forms an incongruous and unconnected element in the landscape. In longer distance views the site is visible from Whiteleaf Hill which provides an elevated view across Princes Risborough, the Vale and the Chilterns AONB. Whiteleaf Hill provides views from the Chilterns scarp and the area is a key tourism site in the Chilterns containing a chalk cross, Neolithic barrow and windmill mound.

5.96 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application.

5.97 It is noted that the Chilterns Conservation Board object to the proposal on a number of grounds and consider that the potential impacts on users of the AONB have been underplayed in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. Although they do highlight that as the proposal is in outline form, insufficient detail has been provided to judge the impacts of the development.

5.98 The Council recently undertook a Landscape Assessment of Strategic Sites (Feb 2014) which informed background work on the new Local Plan. The site at Mill Lane was assessed and the overall landscape sensitivity for the site was considered to be moderate-low and the conclusion reached that the landscape is likely to be able to accommodate development with only minor adverse change in landscape character. However, this was on the basis of avoiding placing development within the more sensitive parts of the site.

5.99 In terms of landscape character impact, the following conclusions are drawn: • The proposal would result in significant localised adverse landscape impact from the loss of agricultural fields and introduction of housing • The railway line forms a clear settlement edge and thus the development would comprise the introduction of housing into the open rural countryside. But in this location the proximity of Kingsmead residential area reduces the sensitivity of site in landscape character terms (in respect of residential development), however this mainly applies to the southern part of the site • The development would cause an adverse landscape impact on Longwick Landscape Character Area (LCA) but this is not considered to be significant due to size of the LCA and nature of development, in that housing is not an atypical landuse in this LCA

Page 43 • The level of impact in landscape character terms depends very much on extent of the built form, layout, character, design, style, density etc. of the development

5.100 In respect of visual impact, the following conclusions are drawn:- • Local visual impacts will be restricted to close views from nearby residential properties and public footpaths near and on the site. • Some of the local views will be significantly affected, some of which are unlikely to be fully mitigated • The site is visible in the middle distance from the AONB (Whiteleaf Hill). Whether development would have a significant visual impact on this viewpoint will depend on layout, design, materials, density, landscaping • Proximity and visibility of Kingsmead residential area reduces the sensitivity of the southern part of the site in visual terms • The northern/north western part are visually more associated with the adjoining agricultural land uses making them visually more sensitive to built- up development.

5.101 It is clear that the landscape character of the site will change from agricultural use to urban and although the proposal would result in residential development to the other side of the railway line, residential development already exists to the west beyond the railway line at Kingsmead which weakens the sense of spreading the existing settlement boundary. Care however will need to be taken at the reserved matters stage that the development takes account of the visual sensitivity of the northern portion of the site. The illustrative master plan currently shows development in the more visually sensitive parts of the site.

5.102 Although it is considered that the principle of housing on the site is acceptable in landscape and visual terms, the quantum of development proposed cannot be accommodated on the site without resulting in an unacceptable landscape and visual impact. To take account of the landscape and visual sensitivities, built form should be avoided in those parts of the site that are most sensitive in LVIA terms (north western corner). In addition any layout should be of a form and density that is in keeping with its surroundings and allows for adequate open space and meaningful structural planting throughout the site. The illustrative masterplan and development framework drawing do not suggest this to be the case. Although the applicant has reduced the number of dwellings, the illustrative masterplan continues to indicate development in the visually most sensitive north western part of the site.

5.103 It is considered that the density of development cannot be accommodated on the site without compromising the quality of the development and without causing a significant adverse impact on the local landscape character, including views from the AONB. Amenity of existing and future residents ALP: G8 (Detailed design guidance and local amenity), H19 (Residents amenity space and gardens) Appendix 1 CSDPD: CS19 (Raising the quality of place shaping and design) 5.104 As the application is in outline form, with the scale, layout and appearance reserved for future consideration, matters such as safeguarding the amenity of existing and proposed residents would be addressed through reserved matters application(s). Environmental issues ALP: G15 (Noise), G16 (Light pollution) CSDPD: CS18 (Waste, natural resources and pollution)

Page 44 5.105 Environmental issues relevant to planning include potential disturbance due to noise from traffic along Mill Lane and from the adjacent railway line, land contamination and pollution.

5.106 The acoustic report acknowledges that there will be a need to mitigate the effects of traffic and rail noise. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that a planning condition will be necessary to secure the detail of a noise protection scheme which will include acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation, in order to protect occupants from undue noise disturbance.

5.107 In relation to land contamination, in light of the sites’ history of non-industrial use it is unlikely to be contaminated. The supporting desk study recommends further investigative works as such it would be appropriate for the applicant to maintain a watching brief for any unexpected or unforeseen contamination. The detail of which can be adequately secured by a planning condition. Flooding and drainage CSDPD: CS1 (Overarching principles - sustainable development), CS18 (Waste, natural resources and pollution) DSA: DM17 (Planning for flood risk management) 5.108 Core Strategy policy CS18 requires that development avoid increasing (and where possible reduce) risks of or from any form of flooding.

5.109 The closest surface water feature to the site is an unnamed ordinary watercourse which flows in a south westerly direction running parallel to the site boundary. The watercourse in part runs alongside the railway line, then beneath Mill Lane before it emerges on land to the opposite side of Mill Lane. The underlying solid geology is classified as a Principle Aquifer, which usually provides a high level of water storage. The site is located within an area classified as having high susceptibility to groundwater flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of the planning application and the Council has a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (November 2014) which depicts the site within an area of groundwater emergence and at risk of surface water flooding. The SFRA also identifies within Princes Risborough and surrounding villages there have been 20 instances of external and 3 instances of internal flooding from sewers.

5.110 The NPPF establishes the Sequential Test, the aim of which is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Paragraph 101 of the NPPF highlights that the sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) is the basis for applying the test. The site has not been allocated for development in the development plan and therefore the sequential test needs to be done on an individual site basis. Although the site is located in Flood Zone 1, the SFRA and recent Section 19 Flood Investigation Report for Mill Lane indicate flooding issues. Sequential test 5.111 The FRA states that the sequential test has been applied but this has only been applied in respect of fluvial flooding. The applicant has not undertaken the sequential test in respect of all forms of flooding. Officers consider that there are available, reasonably alternative sites for housing development of a similar scale which have a lower probability of flooding within the catchment area for housing development. The development therefore fails the sequential test. Exceptions test 5.112 Residential development is defined as “more vulnerable” in the flood risk classification, set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Table 3 contained in the

Page 45 PPG confirms that the exceptions test would not be required for the proposed development. Tidal and fluvial flooding 5.113 The site is located in Environment Agency flood zone 1, which is an area with a low probability (1 in 1000) of flooding from main rivers. In accordance with the PPG “more vulnerable” uses are appropriate in Zone 1.

5.114 The existence of the ordinary watercourse close to the site has the potential to create a risk of flooding on the application site particularly where the watercourse is located adjacent to the site boundary. The FRA identifies that to reduce the potential risk consideration should be given at the layout stage of avoiding locating properties adjacent to the watercourse, this could have implications for the developable area of the application site. This method of mitigation has also been highlighted by the County Council in their role as Local Flood Authority. Ground and surface water flooding 5.115 The site is known to have a high susceptibility to groundwater flooding and the FRA acknowledges this highlighting that mitigation such as raised floor levels and locating properties outside of areas most at risk will need to be considered as part of future reserved matter(s) applications.

5.116 Environment Agency data shows that part of the site is at risk of surface water flooding (low risk, 1 in 1000). This would equate to an area of 1.5 ha of the site (19%) as being within an area at risk of surface water flooding. There have been reported incidents of flooding on and close to the application site which are thought to be due to high groundwater levels and increased surface water flooding due to prolonged rainfall.

5.117 The Environment Agency object to the development on flood risk grounds. Their reasons are that the development fails to demonstrate that the proposals will not put increased properties in areas at risk of flooding and that the proposed drainage scheme, including SUDS would be inadequate to manage surface water run-off.

5.118 The illustrative development framework drawing and illustrative masterplan show housing located within the area highlighted at being at risk of flooding. The application and quantum of development proposed has not taken sufficient account of the constraint posed by the potential risk of flooding and surface water drainage scheme. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the quantum of development can acceptably fit on the site in a manner which does not avoid the risk of flooding.

5.119 Both the County and District Drainage Officers have highlighted inadequacies of the FRA and concerns that the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would not increase the flood risk on the site and to the surrounding area. Sewer and drain flooding 5.120 A public foul sewer runs diagonally across the application site. Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the new development. Thames Water have therefore recommended that should planning permission be forthcoming that it be subject to a planning condition to ensure that drainage infrastructure is in place to cater for the wastewater flows from the development, thereby avoiding any increased risk of sewerage flooding or pollution from the development. It is considered that such a Grampian style planning condition is necessary and reasonable.

Page 46 5.121 The Environment Agency has also requested a similar condition in order to ensure that the development does not cause sewer flooding which in turn could pollute the local water system. Agricultural land 5.122 Paragraph 112 of the NPPF sets out government policy to protect agricultural land, which is that LPAs should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The best and most versatile agricultural land is in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification. The NPPF encourages the use of previously developed “brownfield” land and where the use of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the use of poorer quality is preferred to that of a higher quality. The development plan does not contain a policy which reflects this aspect of the NPPF.

5.123 An Agricultural Land Report accompanies the planning application which is informed by a soil and agricultural desk study and land survey by an agricultural land survey. The survey concludes that the land is classified as grade 3, with 60% of the site as grade 3a (4.9 ha) and 40% grade 3b (3.3 ha). The grade 3a land is located to the southern portion of the site.

5.124 The loss of 4.9 hectares high quality agricultural land would cause some harm. However, the impact of this loss needs to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal. Ecology CSDPD: CS17 (Environmental assets) DSA: DM13 (Conservation and enhancement of sites, habitats and species of biodiversity and geodiversity importance), DM14 (Biodiversity in development) 5.125 The application is accompanied by an ecological appraisal which comprises an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. The survey concludes that:
The sites ecological interest is limited to the boundary vegetation along the edges;
The proposal will not have adverse impacts on any statutory and non-statutory designated sites;
The site is unlikely to support any protected species and that any species would be associated with boundary vegetation which is recommended for retention. Precautionary measures are recommended in relation to breeding birds, roosting bats and reptiles. 5.126 A number of ecological enhancement measures are recommended within the survey which includes the use of native plant species, incorporation of nesting boxes for birds and bats, the retention of gaps under fencing to allow for species movement and 3m buffers to all boundary hedgerows.

5.127 The survey findings and the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are considered to be acceptable in ecological terms. If planning permission were forthcoming, planning conditions would be necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation and enhancements and seeking submission of an ecological management plan. Public open space CSDPD: CS6 (Princes Risborough), CS17 (Environmental Assets), CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place Shaping and Design), CS21 (Contribution of Development to Community Infrastructure) DSA: DM16 (Open Space in New Development) Planning obligations SPD

Page 47 5.128 To accord with policy DM16, the development will be required to make provision for public open space to serve new residents. Based upon the indicative housing mix, 210 dwellings would generate 503 people with the public open space requirements as follows in the table. These figures would be marginally reduced as the quantum of development has been reduced to a maximum of 192 dwellings.

Open space typology OS standard 503 as per persons policy (DM16) Ha / 1000 population

Strategic 3.3 1.66

Public 1.2 0.60 outdoor sport

Park 1.67 0.84

Allotments 0.23 0.11

Play 0.2 0.10

Local * 1.15 0.58

Informal 0.55 0.28 amenity space

Local play 0.6 0.30

Total 4.45 2.24

5.129 The illustrative development framework drawing indicates the provision of 2.1 ha of public open space including the provision of an equipped play area. Policy DM16 states that the development of strategic sites will be expected to meet all local and strategic open space requirements on site as a minimum. The supporting text to the policy defines that strategic sites are those identified as Reserve Locations for Future Development (Policy CS8) or other sites that may come forward of a similar scale. The application site is of a comparable size to some of the Reserve Sites, therefore it is expected that development of the application site should address the requirement for both local and strategic open space provision on site.

5.130 As the housing mix is only indicative and the quantum of development is up to a maximum of 192, the exact quantum of public open space cannot be tied down at the outline stage. However, the illustrative development framework does indicate a quantum of open space provision in the region of what would be expected to satisfy development plan policy. If planning permission were forthcoming the appropriate provision and maintenance of public open space on site in accordance with the standard stipulated in development plan policy would need to be secured within a

Page 48 legal agreement. The detail of public open space provision in terms of its nature and location within the site would be covered in future reserved matters application(s). Archaeology ALP: HE19 (Archaeology) CSDPD: CS17 (Environmental assets) 5.131 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of heritage assets affected, including any contribution made to their setting. Paragraph 132 says that there should be great weight given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, whilst paragraph 139 extends this principle to non-designated heritage assets with an archaeological interest equivalent to that of a scheduled monument.

5.132 Local Plan policy HE19 states that planning permission will not be granted for any proposed development which would harm unscheduled archaeological remains or their setting which are considered to be of county, regional or national importance and worthy of preservation.

5.133 An archaeological desk based assessment has been submitted in support of the planning application. In response to comments from the County Archaeologist the applicant has undertaken trial trenching which has confirmed that the site does not have potential to include archaeological interest and therefore no further archaeological works are necessary. Building sustainability CSDPD: CS18 (Waste, natural resources and pollution) DSA: DM18 (Carbon reduction and water efficiency) Living within our limits SPD 5.134 Policy CS18 requires development to minimise waste, encourage recycling, conserve natural resources and contribute towards the goal of reaching zero-carbon developments as soon as possible, by incorporating appropriate on-site renewable energy features and minimising energy consumption.

5.135 Policy DM18 requires that the development will be required to deliver a minimum of 15% reduction in carbon emissions on site through the use of decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources and achieve a water efficiency standard equivalent to Level 3 and 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

5.136 The Planning Statement acknowledges the carbon reduction requirement set out in development plan policy. As the application is in outline, the detail of resource use minimisation, carbon reduction and renewable energy options will need to be determined at the design stage as part of reserved matters application(s).

5.137 These aspects can be adequately secured by planning conditions seeking submission of full details of a carbon reduction scheme and water efficiency standard. Such planning conditions are considered to be necessary and reasonable and should be imposed should planning permission be forthcoming. Infrastructure and Developer Contributions CSDPD: CS21 (Contribution of development to community infrastructure) DSA: DM19 (Infrastructure and delivery) Planning Obligations SPD

Page 49 5.138 The Council introduced a Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) Charging Schedule on 1st November 2012. This is a new charge on most types of development to fund infrastructure to support the development of the area. The development is a type of development where CIL would be chargeable. The amount of CIL that this development would be liable to pay is approximately £2.1m. This money can be spent on items that appear on the Council’s CIL Regulation 123 List. CIL will be spent in the District but does not have to be spent on infrastructure that is related to the development. Infrastructure that is directly related to the development and which passes the Regulation 122 tests can still be secured by a planning obligation.

5.139 Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations states that a planning obligation (that is an obligation secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:- a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms b) Directly related to the proposed development; and c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; 5.140 The planning policy basis for considering the impacts of development is provided by the Core Strategy and in particular policies CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) and CS21 (Contribution of development to community infrastructure). Further guidance is provided within the Planning Obligations SPD.

5.141 In this instance it is considered that the following matters should be secured by a planning obligation. Education 5.142 The Planning Obligations SPD states that Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC), as the Local Education Authority will make an assessment of the need for education contributions on large sites of at least 100+ where it may be necessary to provide either new on-site provision or expansion of an existing school in the area to meet the direct needs of the development.

5.143 The calculation of any financial contribution will relate to the number of children likely to be accommodated by the development multiplied by the cost of providing school places.

5.144 BCC has advised that pre-school providers in the Princes Risborough area are currently full and as such will not have capacity to accommodate children living on the application site. In respect of primary school provision the site falls within the primary school catchment area of Monks Risborough Church of England School. This school has no surplus places as its capacity of 206 places is taken on the school roll (May 2014). BCC have advised that across the Princes Risborough area there is a current surplus of 8% although the overall surplus capacity does not differentiate between the available capacity across different year groups. Based on BCC pupil yield rates/build cost multipliers and the indicative mix of homes, the following pre-school and primary school contributions would be required to meet the need arising from the application site:- Pre-school contribution of £143,870 Primary school contribution of £1,011,028 5.145 As the housing mix is indicative the exact contribution would have to be confirmed at the reserved matter(s) and therefore expressed as a formula within a Section 106 Agreement.

5.146 Secondary school provision is covered by CIL.

Page 50 5.147 Having regard to the statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations and the National Planning Policy Framework it is considered that the following planning obligation(s) are required to be secured within a section 106 agreement: • Provision of affordable housing • Provision of and maintenance of public open space • Primary school education contribution • Travel plan (including monitoring fee) • Management and maintenance of SUDS

5.148 A section 106 agreement has not been progressed; therefore if permission is refused the absence of a planning obligation to secure the above matters would constitute a reason for refusal. However, in the event of an appeal this reason could be addressed if a legal agreement was completed. Weighing and balancing of issues – overall assessment 5.149 This section brings together the assessment that has so far been set out in order to weigh and balance relevant planning considerations in order to reach a conclusion on the application.

5.150 In determining the planning application, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In addition, Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act relating to the determination of planning applications and states that in dealing with planning applications, the authority shall have regard to: (a) Provision of the development plan insofar as they are material (b) Any local finance considerations, so far as they are material to the application (in this case, CIL) (c) Any other material considerations 5.151 As set out above, it is considered that the proposed development would conflict with a number of development plan policies.

5.152 In considering other material considerations, the proposal has also been assessed against policies of the NPPF and found to be in conflict particularly in relation promoting sustainable transport, highway impact, safe pedestrian routes, good design, conserving landscape of the Chilterns AONB and flooding.

5.153 As set out above, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites when assessed against emerging objectively assessed housing need. Therefore the NPPF indicates that relevant housing supply policies should not be considered up-to- date and the application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

5.154 The benefit in this case is the delivery of housing and provision of affordable housing. But this benefit is questionable as there are a number of factors notably the timing and delivery of possible dual tracking of the railway line and provision of a new footbridge across the railway line, which cast doubt over whether housing would be delivered on the site within five years.

5.155 Though there are benefits in this case in terms of the provision of affordable housing, officers conclude that the adverse impacts in regard to highway capacity impact, transport sustainability, pedestrian safety, prejudicing delivery of strategic rail infrastructure, flood risk, loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land, poor

Page 51 design and adverse impact on land designated as AONB would outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

5.156 In the opinion of Officers, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development as envisaged by the NPPF. Had the local planning authority been in a position to issue a decision on the application it would have been recommended for refusal by officers.

Recommendation: Minded to Refuse

That had the Authority been in a position to determine this application, permission would have been refused for the following reasons:

1 The development would fail the sequential test and is objectionable in principle. The development would therefore represent inappropriate development in an area that is at risk of surface water flooding. This would be contrary to policies CS1 (Overarching Principle- Sustainable Development) and CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and Policy DM1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The development would fail to demonstrate that it would not increase the risk of flooding at the site and within areas around the site. In the absence of an acceptable solution to flooding and inadequate surface water drainage scheme it is considered that the development would result in an increased flood risk to properties and could affect the way the development is subsequently accommodated on the site with consequent impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the amount of development that can be accommodated on the site. This would be contrary to policies CS1 (Overarching Principle - Sustainable Development) and CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution) of the Adopted Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy and Policy DM1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), DM17 (Planning for Flood Risk Management) of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocation Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The proposed development might fail to safeguard the future development of the railway line and rail infrastructure between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury and may impinge on land required to double track the railway line between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury. The development would therefore be contrary to policy CS1 (Overarching Principle-Sustainable Development), CS16 (Transport) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and the Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 3.

4 The proposed development would prejudice the proper planning and ability to comprehensively plan for the expansion of Princes Risborough to the north west. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

5 The development by virtue of the quantum proposed cannot acceptably fit on the site to achieve a high standard of design and layout without causing a harmful visual impact to the landscape and upon the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and without increasing the risk of flooding and without prejudicing the future development of the railway line. As such the development would be contrary to policies CS17 (Environmental Assets), CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution), CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place Shaping and Design) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and policies G3 (General Design Policy), H8 (Appropriate Development Densities), L1 (Chilterns AONB) of the Adopted Local Plan.

Page 52 6 The proposed development fails to demonstrate that safe, convenient and attractive access on foot can be achieved across the Aylesbury railway line. In the absence of this, the proposal would not give sufficient encouragement to walking as an alternative means of transport to the car and as a recreational activity. It would also raise safety concerns. As such the proposed development would be contrary to policies CS16 (Transport), CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and policy DM2 (Transport Requirements of Development Sites) of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations DPD.

7 Insufficient information has been submitted with the planning application to enable the implications of widening the footway underneath the Mill Lane rail viaduct to be fully assessed. From the information submitted, an accurate determination cannot be made as to the likely impact upon highway safety and highway network operation. Therefore the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS16 (Transport) and CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and policy DM2 (Transport Requirements of Development Sites) of the Delivery and Site Allocations DPD and the aims of Buckinghamshire's Local Transport Plan 3.

8 In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, the development would fail to deliver opportunities to maximise accessibility to the site by sustainable modes of transport. The absence of adequate infrastructure and the sites remoteness from major built up areas is such that residents of the development would likely to be reliant on the use of the private car. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS16 (Transport) and CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and policy DM2 (Transport Requirements of Development Sites) of the Delivery and Site Allocations DPD and the aims of Buckinghamshire's Local Transport Plan 3.

9 In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the movements produced by the proposed development can be accommodated safely and without causing unacceptable traffic congestion at the Aylesbury Road/New Road/Longwick Road/ Duke Street roundabout junction. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS16 (Transport) and CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD and policy DM2 (Transport Requirements of Development Sites) of the Delivery and Site Allocations DPD and the aims of Buckinghamshire's Local Transport Plan 3.

10 In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing provision, the development would be contrary to policy CS13 (Affordable Housing and Housing Mix) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD (Adopted July 2008) and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

11 In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision and maintenance of public open space, the management and maintenance of SUDS and a financial contribution towards primary education the development would be contrary to policies CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place Shaping and Design), CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution) and CS21 (Contribution of Development to Community Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD, policy DM16 (Open Space in New Development) of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

12 In the absence of the local planning authority being able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites against emerging objectively assessed housing need, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits in particular:- a) loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; b) flood risk and failure of sequential test c) failure to safeguard the future development of the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough railway line d) harmful impact upon Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty e) unsafe pedestrian railway crossing

Page 53 f) prejudice the proper planning of development to the north west of Princes Risborough As such the proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CS1 (Overarching Principle-Sustainable Development), CS16 (Transport), CS17 (Environmental Assets), CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution), CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place Shaping and Design), CS20 (Transport and Infrastructure) of the Adopted Core Strategy DPD, policies L1 (Chilterns AONB) and G3 (General Design Policy) of the Adopted Local Plan and policy DM2 (Transport Requirements of Development Sites) of the Delivery and Site Allocations DPD and Local Transport Plan 3.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

∗ offering a pre-application advice service, ∗ as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, ∗ by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter.

2 The applicant's attention is drawn to reasons for refusal 8, 9, 10 and 11. These could be overcome if the applicant entered into a legal agreement. The other reason(s) for refusal remain valid. Please contact the Planning Department if you require further details in this matter.

Page 54 Agenda Item 6. Appendix A

14/06162/OUT

Consultations and Notification Responses

Former Ward Councillor Preliminary Comments

Former Councillor W J Bendyshe-Brown - I object in the strongest terms to the above outline planning application for the following reasons: • It is in open countryside and outside the existing settlement area of Monk/Princes Risborough. • The proposed housing is complete over development of the area. • The size of the proposed housing does not fit within the current existing housing heights/dimensions of the nearby settlement area. • The road infrastructure is completely inadequate to cope with this significant development. • This is a known flood area which has existed for at least and documented for 80+ years. • The Crossrail project from Oxford to Cambridge is proposing widening the railway line from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury and further north to 2 lines instead of the current single line. This new line will go straight through the proposed site. • Chiltern Conservation Board, of which I am a Trustee, object most strongly to this application, which I fully support. • There is overwhelming opposition to this development within the Risboroughs as it will inevitably end up adding to the existing commuter traffic from/through the local settlement areas as there is insufficient local employment to absorb this increase in population. • Any development outside the existing settlement areas within The Risboroughs will result is the town growing exponentially and this will inevitably mean, if allowed, that development will extend up to the B4009 and beyond as there is no natural settlement barrier to restrict this growth. I will fight this application to the very end as it will completely destroy the rural nature of this ancient and medieval settlement.

Parish/Town Council Comments/Internal and External Consultees

Princes Risborough Town Council – Object. Princes Risborough Town Council views this speculative application as both unwelcome and unwanted. The proposed site falls outside of the main settlement area of the town in open countryside currently used as prime agricultural land. Until a time when development may be considered on this side of the railway line, and/or when parts of open countryside may be considered as potential development sites, PRTC will resist any premature attempts to pre-empt WDC's emerging Local Plan. PRTC are also mindful that sufficient reserved sites remain available within the district to counteract any need for this development. Notwithstanding these concerns, this particular site lies alongside the East-West railway line for which major upgrading is planned and for which adjacent land will need to be made available. This particular area of Monks Risborough is also a flood risk area adding to the inappropriate nature of this application.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd Comments: Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the Local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like the following 'Grampian Style' condition imposed requiring that the development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or offsite drainage works, has been approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. This is to ensure that the

Page 55 development does not lead to sewage flooding and to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development.

With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required.

The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommends a condition be imposed requiring impact studies of the existing water supply.

Environment Agency (south-east) Comments: Objection on flood risk grounds for the following reasons: • The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed drainage scheme will be designed to attenuate the discharge volumes created following the development • The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposals will not put increased properties at risk of flooding

The Chilterns AONB Planning Officer Comments: Object. The Board accepts that the application is in outline, but considers that a development of the scale proposed ought to have been the subject of a full planning application. The drawings and documents that have been submitted are illustrative only, any detail is likely to change markedly in time and they do not provide enough detailed information by which to judge the likely impacts of the proposed development. Most of the site is clearly visible from Whiteleaf Hill and the Board considers that the potential impacts on users of the AONB have been underplayed in the LVIA. This may have arisen because of the lack of detail in the application about the likely form of the development. However, the application mentions that dwellings would be mostly 2 storey with some 2 ½ storey. Most of the buildings in the vicinity of the site are either 1 ½ storey or 2 storey with virtually no 2 ½ storey buildings at all. The scale of the development is therefore likely to be greater than is currently the case in the locality. The Board considers that the development should be kept to 2 storey or below in order to take proper account of the site's context and the likely impacts on the surrounding area. The development would provide up to 210 dwellings at a density of about 35 dwellings per hectare. This would appear to be a denser form of development when compared to the immediate locality and, when taken with the taller buildings proposed, would be likely to lead to greater visibility of the site and therefore impacts on the surrounding area. The concept drawings included within the application show a generally uniform type of development. Greater thought should be given to the impact of the roof scape of the development on the surrounding area. As it is portrayed the northern part of the site would be much more visible from within the AONB due to the orientation of the roofs of the dwellings. With varying orientations the impacts of the roofs would lessen. In addition, the development should include chimneys throughout. The application should have included much more detail about the proposed design and materials. At present it is impossible to predict what the appearance of the development is likely to be. The concept drawings do depict some trees. However, it is difficult to tell whether or not sufficient space has been allowed for any trees that may be planted to reach maturity. To enable this to

Page 56 happen helps developments assimilate into the landscape. Trees should be provided within plots as well as part of the street scene. It appears that the application includes no detail about the levels of lighting to be used. Care will be needed with this issue as there are not many streetlights in the vicinity of the site. Any lighting should be the absolute minimum required for safety reasons, and when used in association with dwellings outside lights should be carefully controlled to limit any spill.

Chiltern Society – Strong opposition. The Local Plan Housing supply for Risborough is potentially amply satisfied for the immediate future and it is premature for the applicant to assert that Wycombe does not have a 5-year housing supply, since the (provisional) market assessment of housing need is only the first stage in setting the future delivery figure. The New Local Plan timetable will be released this summer so approval of this application should await to establish its relevance to need. Part of the Land Parcel in question is being considered for Compulsory Purchase by Network Rail. Network Rail have issued warning notices to property owners along the route stating that they are considering an upgrade to widen the Risborough/Aylesbury line to twin tracks. This will defer any building development plans until the CP land area is defined. The Dwelling Density proposed is excessive for this Rural Context. If the site were to be developed on a stand-alone basis, it must be developed at a density appropriate to its context, and include sufficient greenspace. The outline figure of 210 dwellings would appear to be too high to allow for this. The use of land for dwellings beyond the natural Risborough boundary formed by the railway embankments will create an isolated community. This housing, encroaching into the countryside, will be remote to the local village infrastructure facilities which will generate abnormal resident travel movements and resultant congestion.

Network Rail Comments: Object, the proposal would increase the type and volume of users over Princes Risborough No 31 level crossing. It is unacceptable for there to be any increase of the level crossing which would also lead to an increase in the level of risk to users. An increase in level crossing neighbours may lead to an increase in both wilful and unconscious unsafe acts. At present Chiltern Railways operate a regular train service in both directions along the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line, a total of 54 passenger services traversing the crossing every day, travelling at a maximum of 40mph. There is also a freight service that uses this route, a total of 6 trains traversing the crossing travelling at a maximum of 40mph. East West Rail is currently undertaking a project that is proposing to increase the train service along the line of route and also increase the line speed. The proposed increase in speed would mean that trains would travel at 90mph-100mph (although the line speed has yet to be finalised), there would be a further 34 passenger services per day, meaning a total of 88 passenger trains per day and there would be a further 34 freight services meaning a total of 40 freight services per day. As the council should be aware it is the intention of the East Rail Project team to close all crossings (at grade) along the East West Rail Route, this includes Princes Risborough No.31 footpath crossing. We are also concerned that should Princes Risborough No.31 level crossing remain open, and as a result of increased usage that the predicted increase in line speed may be impacted thus negating the principle of improving the speed and frequency of service for existing and future passengers along the East-West Rail route, as well as freight services. Increased usage of a level crossing may require line speeds to be lowered to minimise the risk to increased numbers of users. East-West Rail are trying to carry out diversions by agreement, however, this would be difficult if there is the possibility that residents of the 210 dwellings would also be using the new path.

Page 57 However, we would withdraw the objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions being met: (a) That Princes Risborough NO.31 level crossing is closed and that a footbridge is installed over the railway. (b) That the Local Planning Authority, Public Rights of Way and Highways Authorities support in principle and in writing the closure of the level crossing and the installation of a footbridge (c) That the county and district councils also support in principle and in writing the Installation of the footbridge either in its current location or as near to its current location as is practicable. In the timeframe permitted for a response it is not possible to provide a definitive location for the footbridge. (d) That the developer, Gladman, fund a sotera option (external independent risk assessor) traffic or transport assessment report with a commitment to at least consider a 50/50 split in the recommended outcome. (e) That the council adopt the footbridge once installed. (f) That the above points (a) to (e) be a condition of the planning approval. Additional comments: Network Rail are still evaluating the short term options for the line and the infrastructure requirements in order to deliver the increased level of train service required as part of East West Rail. Timetable modelling undertaken to date proposes that a dual track through Monks Risborough may be required as part of the project. Regarding the longer-term future of the line, rail industry long term planning process has indicated that additional capacity is expected to be required. In the medium to long term this would be likely to lead to further investment to double track the route between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury I order to deliver this increased capacity. Any double-tracking, either as part of East West Rail project or beyond would require land take to accommodate the provision of the second track as well as an additional platform at Monks Risborough railway station; with a footbridge with ramps potentially provided to facilitate access between the two station platforms. If upgraded the station would also require secondary means of escape to accommodate safe evacuation of the station. From the plans it would seem that the obvious route would be for passengers to evacuate into the area of the proposed housing. The provision of off-street parking necessary if the track was dualled and the station more widely used also appears to conflict with the proposal, as the obvious area for additional parking would be on the area proposed for housing development. In addition, we believe that Mill Lane bridge will need to be rebuilt. In light of the likelihood of future double tracking being required to take place along the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line, Network Rails view is that any planning developments which might impinge on the land required to double track the line ought to be rejected and modified, in order to safeguard the future development of the line and to support our joint aspiration for an increase in services along the line.

County Highway Authority Comments: Refusal recommended. Subsequent to the formal consultation comments dated 23 rd October 2014, the applicant has submitted further information and the recommendation has been reconsidered and our revised comments are as follows. Mindful of the local area and existing services/infrastructure, it is essential that an appropriate mitigation package is agreed to provide access to and enable sustainable transport opportunities. The highway authority considers the mitigation package outlined below is necessary to overcome the highway authority’s reasons for refusal: • Creation of a new footway to link the existing Mill Lane footway between ‘Linkhaven’ and ‘Bonney’: The transport consultant, Stirling Maynard, has provided a drawing (4746/29/02) denoting the extension of the footway on Mill Lane, which has been agreed with the highway authority. • Cycling and walking between the development site and Princes Risborough:The predominant route for pedestrians and cyclists between the site and Princes Risborough

Page 58 would be along Place Farm Way and Wellington Avenue (linking with the existing shared footway/cycleway that currently terminates on the south side of Longwick Road). A journey form the proposed estate would be towards the maximum extent of the distance expected of a pedestrian to walk to and from local services, as suggested within the Charted Institute of Highway and Transportation publication ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot (2000). As such, improvements to walking and cycling facilities are intrinsic in addressing the adverse sustainability issues associated with the development of this site and allow it to comply with policies such as DM2 of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan, Policy CS20 of the Wycombe Development Framework and Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In order to deem the development acceptable in sustainable transport terms, it is necessary for a development of this scale to ensure that it provides improvements for cycle connectivity between the site and Princes Risborough where the main destinations are. The application needs to demonstrate facilities for cyclists on Place Farm Way, Westmead and Wellington Avenue between its junctions with Westmead and Longwick Road Signed cycle route along Place Farm Way/ Westmead Off –road cycle facility from Westmead to Wellington Avenue Upgrade of zebra crossing to a toucan crossing on Longwick Road This is considered necessary to ensure that the site is connected to the existing cycle network which runs along Longwick Road into the centre of Princes Risborough • Cycling and walking between the development site and the bus stops on Aylesbury Road: The nearest bus stops on Aylesbury Road (A4010) are approximately 800m from the site. This is measured from the proposed primary access point on Mill Lane and does not take into account that most of the dwellings will be beyond this point. Stirling Maynard met with the director of the Risborough Community Bus service, who was unable to commit to providing peak hour services or a route within the site. In addition there are no options for existing bus services to be re-routed to serve the proposed development. It is therefore considered essential that access to the high frequency bus service on Aylesbury Road (A4010) is improved. A footway link to the Western bus stop (towards Aylesbury) is required. Pedestrian access to the Eastern bus stop (toward Princes Risborough) is considered sufficient, with an existing Pelican crossing on Aylesbury Road. Improvements will also need to be made to the bus stop facilities on both sides of Aylesbury Road, including upgrade of shelters and Real Time Information. This will improve waiting experience at the stops and promote the use of sustainable transport. In addition cycle stands should be provided at the Westbound stop (towards Aylesbury) to promote linked trips by sustainable modes of transport. This was agreed to in principle by the applicant. • Proposed footway widening under the Railway Bridge and Crowbrook junction works: The applicant has proposed a signalised junction on Mill Lane, thus allowing narrowing of the carriageway to permit widening of the footway underneath the railway bridge. The design has been changed to take into account the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Fundamental changes have been proposed to the scheme, as set out in drawing 4746/29/01A. As such, the highway authority is of the view that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit needs to be repeated, specifically taking into account the conflicting turning movements and potential for vehicles turning right out of Crowbrook Road blocking Mill Lane. As the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit considers the feasibility of a scheme, it is essential that this is completed prior to the grant of planning permission. • Monks Risborough Station Improvements: Considering the proximity to the site, and despite the limited time-table, it is the County Council’s view that rail travel is a real opportunity and alternative to the private car. Pedestrian access to Monks Risborough Station is currently very poor and not DDA compliant. A scheme needs to be provided to improve the frontage/pedestrian access to the station, including the provision of cycle parking. This could be achieved through widening the footway fronting the station on and re-aligning

Page 59 Crowbrook road. It is noted that Network Rail, as part of East/West Rail are considering duelling the line through Monks Risborough. This would be likely to require a platform on the north side and then a bridge or an underpass to connect the platforms. Network Rail has also indicated that if the track is duelled they would require additional off-street car parking, potentially on the development site. This would potentially negate the need for station improvements on Crowbrook Road • Aylesbury Road/New Road/Longwick Road/ Duke Street junction: The transport consultant, Sterling Maynard, submitted a scheme to alter that A4010 New Arm Road of the roundabout, which in terms of modelling provides a nil detriment impact form the development traffic. ARCADY uses a complicated formula in order to calculate the Ratio to Flow Capacity (RFC). Whilst a slight widening of lane entry width will show marked improvements in terms of RFC, queuing and journey delay, in reality it will have no impact on the operation of the junction. The improvement scheme shown on drawing 4746/29/02, which slightly widens the New Road approach, will have no real benefit in terms of capacity. It has been agreed that the development will have an impact on capacity at this junction, increasing demand on Aylesbury Road, New Road and Longwick arms, with New Road over theoretical capacity (RFC of 0.97) and Aylesbury Road at the limit of theoretical capacity (RFC 0.85). The highway authority has therefore requested a contribution of £50,000 towards design/implementation of highway capacity improvements in Princes Risborough. This was agreed to in principle by the applicant. The highway authority is of the view that the proposed development in this location could be suitable providing the above mitigation is provided to promote sustainable travel. In the absence of an agreed mitigation package the highway authority recommends the application be refused.

Bucks County Council Place Service Comments: We would expect acknowledgement of the latest parking standards in any development proposal. The need for affordable and specialist accommodation should be prioritised and given appropriate consideration. The coverage of sustainable drainage matters is encouraging. We make a number of suggestions for consideration going forward. The proposed green links are positive, though greening opportunities should be maximised with reference to key priority documents. Consideration for the potential landscape and visual impact upon the AONB and surrounding sites must be prioritised. Consideration of the Rights of Way network is positive. The proposal creates an opportunity to upgrade the local network. There is potential that the proposal site includes heritage assets of archaeological interest.

County Archaeological Service Comments: The application site has the potential to include assets of archaeological interest. The applicant should undertake archaeological field evaluation prior to determination of the application. In the absence of this information the likely effect of the development on any archaeological interest cannot be properly assessed.

Rights of Way and Access Comments: I have been in discussions with Network Rail (NR) over 42 'at grade' rights of way crossings as part of the East West Rail project, 16 of which affect the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line. The crossing by Footpath 31 Princes Risborough Parish has been discussed, but no decision has been made on a solution and therefore no formal or informal public consultation has yet commenced. At the last meeting NR mooted closing the crossing and diverting users along Crowbrook Road then under the existing highways bridge to link with Footpath 30. However, we thought this too long and inconvenient for pedestrians, reducing the options for circular walking and convenient onward connections. We are keen to retain attractive walking options and access to the

Page 60 countryside close to where people live in order to promote easy access for fresh air and exercise, and avoid unnecessary car journeys to honey pot sites. In conclusion, it was agreed NR would undertake a pedestrian usage survey and assess the possibility of a footbridge over the railway line on or near the existing right of way crossing. A simple closure and diversion along existing footways with or without the proposed development would be opposed.

County Education Authority Comments: To meet legal and policy requirements BCC would require contributions towards both primary and pre-school education to mitigate the impact of the development. The number of children generated from new housing is calculated by multiplying the number of homes for each dwelling type by the respective pupil yield rates. All early year's providers in the Princes Risborough area are currently full and will not have capacity to accommodate the children living on the application site: The proposed development site falls in the primary catchment area of Monks Risborough CE School. Monks Risborough has no surplus places with a capacity of 206 places and a number on roll of 206 pupils (May 2014). Across the Princes Risborough planning area there is a current surplus of 8% - although, the overall surplus capacity does not differentiate between the available capacity across the different year groups or give an indication of the rising child population in Princes Risborough - with a 2% surplus at Key Stage1 compared to 13% surplus places at Key Stage 2.As the higher numbers feed through - the projections to 2018/19 show that overall surplus will fall below the DfE recommended range of 5-10% which is to allow for year on year fluctuations in parental choice and volatility in the population. To meet the increased demand in the area arising from this development, the LA would intend to expand capacity at Princes Risborough Primary School.

Buckinghamshire County Council (SAB) Comments: Object, due to the high risk of surface water flooding and groundwater flooding on the development site and increased risk to the surrounding areas. In order to assess this proposal fully and give a final decision the following would be required: • Detailed calculations of proposed runoff and volume storage • Examples of groundwater level observations over the winter period • Ground infiltration investigation during winter • Details of the surface water drainage system These details are necessary to ensure that the proposal does not increase the flood risk to the areas surrounding the site or put the development at risk.

Flood Risk or SuDS Comments: Object. Insufficient consideration has been given to the extreme fluctuation in water table levels at Mill Lane particularly with regard to the ground water emergence apparent at the site, or the potential for causing off-site flooding. The flooding and closure of Mill Lane across the access road location is a particularly serious issue which must be addressed, as any repetition could prevent. vehicular movement in and out of the site. The whole of the low lying Monks Risborough/Longwicklllmer corridor contains a network of interlinked watercourses which routinely overtop their banks due to groundwater exceedance and extensive ground investigation work to determine soil infiltration rates, water table levels and overland run-off flow paths is required before a robust drainage strategy can be determined or approved The Environment Agency surface water flood risk map clearly indicates that a large section of the site and adjacent area falls within an area at risk of flooding. The increase in impermeable area from the proposed development of 210 dwellings could therefore seriously impact on fluvial flows in the adjacent ordinary watercourse, and it should be

Page 61 noted that the network of ditches and ordinary watercourses within the low lying Monks Risborough/Longwick corridor are interlinked, which could lead to a significantly increased risk of ground/surface water flooding around the site (already a regular occurrence). There was flooding along Mill Lane during February 2014, when the site was heavily waterlogged with groundwater emergence being apparent at the surface. The adjacent ordinary water course was flowing at virtually maximum capacity, several houses along Mill Lane and Kingsmead were flooded, and the highway drainage network was also seriously surcharged. The road was closed between Kingsmead, under the railway bridge, to Crowborough Road for nearly 3 weeks (at the exact location of the proposed access road junction), and at least one vehicle had to be rescued by the Fire Brigade. Any reoccurrence of this situation could prevent vehicular access to the development, which is clearly unacceptable - a major issue that has not been addressed in either the Flood Risk Assessment or the Design and Access Report. Intensive monitoring of groundwater levels within and adjacent to the site (particularly over the winter months), is required, also Soakage Rate Testing (to BRE 365) needs to be carried out to establish the suitability of the underlying sub-soil for infiltration systems. Much more detailed investigation work is necessary before a realistic appraisal of the drainage strategy can be made.

Community Housing Comments: It is noted that information submitted by the applicant indicates the provision of affordable housing to be 40% of the number of dwellings, rather than the 40% policy level of the total bedspaces. If the proposal goes ahead, the Housing Service would expect to see affordable housing delivered in accordance with the policy based on bedspaces. It is noted that the application includes information setting out an indicative mix of affordable homes. If the proposal goes ahead, the housing service would prefer there to be more 2 bed affordable homes for rent in place of some of the proposed 4 bed homes for rent.

Control of Pollution Environmental Health Comments: Object unless planning conditions are imposed requiring the submission and approval of a noise protection scheme. It is noted that further investigative works are proposed and as such it is appropriate for the applicant to maintain a watching brief for any unexpected/unforeseen contamination. This matter should be the subject of a planning condition.

Arboriculture Spatial Planning Comments: No objection. Acceptable in arboricultural terms subject to approval of details. Tree retention is likely to be good but detail will be required to ensure this. New tree planting will needs space to be given over to it. This will need consideration at the layout stage.

Landscape Officers Planning Policy Comments: The application is outline with all matters of design and layout reserved. This lack of detail creates a difficulty when considering the impact of the development in landscape and visual terms as the level of impact (visual impacts in particular) depends on the layout, density, design and soft landscape treatment. The LVIA can therefore not be conclusive or specific at this stage but only give an indication of sensitivities and inform the design of the site. Looking at the indicative layout it is not clear how this work has informed the design. A further LVIA will be required at detailed application stage should the application be permitted.

Having reviewed the current LVIA it is my view that both of the landscape and visual impacts have been underestimated at a local level. This is partly caused by an overreliance on the impact of soft landscape treatment. The LVIA also insufficiently recognises the potential impact on views from the AONB.

Whilst I consider the principle of housing on this site acceptable in landscape and visual terms I

Page 62 am concerned about the quantum of development proposed. I am unconvinced that the proposed number of units can be successfully accommodated without causing an unacceptable landscape and visual impact.

Taking account of landscape and visual sensitivities any development should avoid built form in those parts of the site that are most sensitive in LVIA terms, e.g. the northwestern corner. In addition, any layout should be of a form and density that is in keeping with its surroundings and allows for adequate open space and meaningful structural planting throughout the site. The indicative layout and quantum of development do not suggest this to be the case. In light of above concerns and in absence of any detailed information I am not able to support the application.

Ecological Officer Comments: The survey findings, the proposed mitigation and the recommended enhancement measures are considered acceptable in ecological terms. Representations Approximately 87 comments have been received objecting to the proposal: • The proposal would ruin and alter the character of the village • Unwelcome extension into open countryside and being the other side of the railway line the site would not integrate with the existing community • The land is greenfield/green belt and should be protected. Brownfield land should be developed first. • The proposal should be considered as part of the local plan process & in a strategic/comprehensive way and not in a piecemeal fashion which would not deliver any commitment to infrastructure improvements. The timing of the application is premature. • The proposal lacks any appropriate mix of uses to make it a community. • Short sighted to be building on agricultural land which is needed to feed the increasing population. The land is currently used for growing crops on it. • If approved, the development would set a precedent for expanding residential development along the railway line. • Increase in traffic and the local road network will not be able to cope. Junction of Crowbrook Road/Mill Lane is already dangerous and there is no footway along part of Mill Lane & Crowbrook Road. Highway safety will be worsened. • There is no provision in the scheme for secondary Emergency vehicle access. • There is not a continuous footpath between the proposed development and the primary school • Detailed comments provided regarding the inadequacy of the transport assessment. • Local infrastructure is already stretched and inadequate to serve new residents, especially in relation to shops, schools and medical services. Local schools already have waiting lists. • Exacerbate flooding on the land and under the railway bridge which already floods. The local sewerage system cannot cope. • There is a lack of open space in the proposal which would exacerbate flooding. • Open space provision should also be provided for teenagers. • The land is contaminated and residential development would be unsuitable. • Negative impact on the Chilterns AONB and spoiling views from it. • Negative impact on the village of Askett and its designated Conservation Area status • Limited local employment opportunities meaning that people will have to travel which will cause further congestion on local roads. • The density would be too high in a rural area.

Page 63 • The site is not within walking distance of local amenities and the Risborough Community Bus Service is just for shopping and no use for commuting. Inadequate local public transport into Princes Risborough. • The proposal would not meet tests of the NPPF and would not be sustainable development. • Recognise that there is demand for new houses but it should not be heavily imposed on a small community. • There are no local employment opportunities for new residents which would facilitate extensive commuting • Increase in air and noise pollution. • Loss of light to properties on the south side of Kingsmead. • Detrimental impact on residential amenity and loss of garden privacy • Loss of ecology/wildlife habitat. • Loss of view of Whiteleaf Cross. • Disturbance during lengthy construction period. • Devalue local properties.

Askett Society – Object, this an opportunistic application coming in while the District Council is in the process of a new Local Plan. The proposal would breach the railway line boundary and destroy the nature of Princes Risborough as a rural market town. All large scale greenfield developments such as this should be put in abeyance pending the outcome of the new Local Plan to ensure cohesive integrated development. The site is seen from higher ground of the B4009 and would intrude in views of the Chiltern Escarpment. The area has been subject to serious flooding and the road under the railway bridge in particular becomes a sump for floodwater and impassable. The junction of Crowbrook Road/Mill Lane is very dangerous and Crowbrook Road at the Askett village end is very narrow. The traffic survey is naïve and has no recognition to existing traffic difficulties. There will be a huge increase in traffic flow and worsen traffic and pedestrian safety. The density is inappropriate for a rural setting and new residents would place a serve strain an existing infrastructure. If permitted, the development could be constructed at the same time as HS2 and consideration should be given to construction traffic on the local road network.

Rt. Hon. John Bercow MP – put forward my objections to the proposed development in the strongest possible terms. In itself, this development would be wholly unwelcome. Not only would it provide housing at a density that is totally unsuitable for the area and on agricultural land but it will also exacerbate the traffic problems on Mill Lane going towards the B4009. Furthermore, the recent flooding highlighted the fact, confirmed to local residents by Thames Water that the sewerage system is "overcharged" during periods of heavy rain. Were the proposal to be approved, there is a very real risk that this would mean an increased regularity of flooding for the properties in Crowbrook Road, which are at a lower ground level. I would also like to object on policy grounds. The Wycombe Local Plan is currently being developed, which will set out recommendations on housing expansion over the coming years. Were this application to be approved before the Plan is finalised, it would affect the development policy in the rest of the area around the Risboroughs in particular and the area in general. I feel strongly that any development should be planned with the interests of the area and its residents as the priority. Not only would this development be unwelcome, but it is premature and runs the risk of undermining the thrust of the Local Plan.

2 neutral comments have been received to the proposal: • As the site is included as one of the options in the Local Plan, consideration of the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the new Local Plan and following an assessment of infrastructure requirements. It would be illogical to begin any future

Page 64 expansion of the Risboroughs at the extremity of the potential growth area furthest away from existing amenities • The creation of new homes would provide the opportunity to welcome new people to the village however local infrastructure must be in place to support the scale of new development.

1 comment of support: • To preserve the character of Princes Risborough and Askett new building should take place adjacent to the railway line on non-green belt land but in a structured & planned manner

Page 65 Agenda Item 6. Appendix B

Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Agenda Item 7. Contact: Sarah Nicholson DDI No. 01494 421514

App No : 15/05044/FUL App Type: Full Application

Application for : Erection of single storey detached 1-bed barn style agricultural workers dwelling/hospitality accommodation in connection with existing agricultural enterprises & shoots at Bolter End Farm accessed via existing track from Finings Road

At OS Parcel 2146, Lane End, Footpath 10, Lane End, Buckinghamshire

Date Received : 13/01/15 Applicant : Mr William Lacey

Target date for 10/03/15 Decision

1. Summary 1.1. Permission is being sought for the erection of single storey detached 1-bed barn style agricultural workers dwelling/hospitality accommodation in connection with existing agricultural enterprises & shoots at Bolter End Farm accessed via an existing track from Finings Road. 1.2. In the opinion of Officers the arguments put forward by the applicant to justify the essential agricultural need for a third dwelling on the holding are not justified. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to adopted countryside policy which seeks to protect the countryside from residential development in isolated rural locations which is not essential for agricultural or forestry reasons. 1.3. Although the proposal raises no issued in terms of its potential impact on the character and appearance of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, residential amenity or highway and traffic issues the proposal which represents the introduction of a dwelling within the countryside which cannot be supported in planning policy terms. 1.4. The application is recommended for refusal. 2. The Application 2.1. Permission is being sought for the erection of single storey detached 1-bed barn style agricultural workers dwelling/hospitality accommodation in connection with existing agricultural enterprises & shoots at Bolter End Farm accessed via an existing track from Finings Road. The site is about 900m to the south west of the existing Bolter End Farm yard area. The applicant the intended occupier of the proposed dwelling is a partner in the family run farm and is responsible for the beef herd and the shoot. 2.2. The application site is located in an isolated position in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the open countryside beyond the Green Belt. It is situated on the crest of Hanover Hill, which is located between Bolters End to the north east, Fingest to the south west and Frieth to the south. A number of footpaths pass the site to the south and west which is situated within a small copse. Historically the site was occupied by an L-shape building which was raised to the ground in 1987 following storm damage in that year’s hurricane. This building was used as a threshing barn, stable block and cottage the last residents being recorded in the mid-1950’s. 2.3. The proposed building is a traditionally styled and would be of a similar size and configuration, and situated in a similar positon to the previous building on the site; the position having been slightly amended to allow room for a suitable boundary treatment to be accommodated and to avoid neighbouring trees. 2.4. The building which is L–shaped with a rear projecting wing is shown to be single storey, in one direction 26.5m and 16.25m in the other having a varied width of between 4 -6m. Internally it would comprise an open plan living area, a boot room, Page 69 WC and one bedroom with an en suite. Externally the building is shown to be finished in timber boarding under a slate tile roof, with timber frame double glazed windows. 2.5. Access to the site would be via the existing track with gravel laid within the site to provide an area for parking and turning. 2.6. The application is accompanied by: Planning Design and Access Statement Photographic Visual Impact Assessment 2.7. The application indicates that the proposed dwelling is intend for occupation by a member of the Lacey family who works on the farm and that there is an agricultural need for the dwelling. In addition to the inclusion of historical information on the historic occupation/use of the site the Planning Design and Access Statement includes details of the functional need for the dwelling and conformation that the applicant would be prepared to accept an agricultural tie should permission be forthcoming. 2.8. The application has been amended twice to alter the position of the building and to provide additional information in terms of defining the proposed residential curtilage, and the submission of additional information in the form of a Landscape management Plan and an Arboricultural Report and Impact Assessment. The application also submitted a further statement justifying the agricultural need for a dwelling. 3. Working with the applicant/agent 3.1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter

3.2 In this instance the the applicant/agent was updated of issues after the initial site visit, and was invited to amend the position of the dwelling and to submit additional information in respect of the impact of the development on neighbouring trees and to provide landscaping details. The applicant/agent responded by submitting the requested information. However, while the submitted information was found to be acceptable the proposal is still considered unacceptable in principle as the Council’s Agricultural Consultants considers that the ‘Functional Test’ for the dwelling has not been proven and therefore by definition the proposal fails to conform with adopted development plan policy and is recommended for refusal.

4. Relevant Planning History 4.1. None. 5. Issues and Policy considerations Principle and Location Adopted Local Plan (ALP): C6 (Farm Diversification), C10 (Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt); Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS1 (Overarching Principles – Sustainable Development), CS2 (Main Principles for the Location of Development), CS7 (Rural Settlements and Rural Areas);

Relevant Planning Policy

Page 70 5.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. With regards to development in rural areas the NPPF at Paragraph 28 seeks to: • “Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural area, both through conversion of existing building and well designed new buildings; • promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land- based rural businesses” 5.2. In addition Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states: To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: ● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or ● where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or ● where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or ● the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. 5.3. Unlike Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) (Rural Areas) the NPPF which replaced it, there are no tests associated with establishing whether there is an essential need for a worker to live on site. However, subsequent case law whilst taking Appendix A of PPS7 as the starting point for an appraisal to determine the essential need for a rural workers dwelling does not require that the proposal is economically viable, but does require a judgement to be made on whether or not there are special circumstances that include the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. 5.4. Policy C10 of the Adopted Local Plan is the Council’s general policy for development in the countryside not within the Green Belt. The policy is primarily one of restraint whilst acknowledging that some development is necessary in order to protect and encourage the vitality and economy of the rural environment. This policy seeks to manage essential development and to ensure that it respects the character and appearance of the countryside, including its visual amenity and openness. Development which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and forestry are one of the limited forms of development which are considered appropriate. Where development is acceptable careful attention should be paid to the design, landscaping and use of materials which should be appropriate to a rural setting. 5.5. Policy C6 of the Adopted Local Plan seeks to encourage and manage farm diversification proposals. These are considered proposals which relate to a specific holding and which are intended to supplement a continuing agricultural use on that holding. Proposals should be considered subject to the following (a) where relevant, the Proposal retains Existing, or provides Additional or Alternative employment; (b) the proposal does not Adversely affect Wildlife features or Amenity; (c) the proposal does not Generate excessive Traffic or raise other Highway objections, and Is supported by public Transport where Possible; (d) the proposal does not generate excessive Traffic or raise other Highway objections, and Is supported by public Transport where Possible; (d) the proposal does not Adversely affect the Character of the Surrounding landscape, And retains or enhances It where possible; Page 71 (e) existing buildings are Used where possible; and (f) new building is limited To extensions, in Accordance with policy C8 . Assessment of the Proposal Essential need 5.6. In order to fully assess the agricultural aspects of the application for the dwelling the Council has commissioned a report from an agricultural consultant. The consultant’s comments are included in the following assessment of the principles of the application. 5.7. Bolter End Farm has been farmed by the Lacey family for 130 years and is now owned in partnership by a number of family members including the applicant. The current holding comprises 200ha (500 acres) located in the locality centred on the farmyard and land at Bolter End Farm. The Farm is a traditional mixed agricultural enterprise with arable and livestock elements and has diversified into a farm shop selling milk, eggs and other products which they also deliver locally and a lowland shoot. The farm currently employs 7 full time workers and around 10 part time employees all from the local area. The employees are a mix of family and non-family members. 5.8. The holding currently benefits from a farmhouse at Bolter End Farmhouse occupied by a farm worker, Bracken Cottage also located at Bolter End Farm occupied by the uncle of the applicant and Storm House occupied by the applicant’s grandmother which adjoins the owned farm land at Bolters End. The applicant currently lives at Roundwood Farm located about 2 miles to the east of the application holding and comprises some 10ha (25 acres) of land managed as part of the Lacey’s agricultural enterprise. There is a farmhouse which is occupied by the applicant and his parents and a second dwelling on the holding which is occupied by the applicant’s brother. 5.9. The test of essential need for a permanent dwelling requires evidence that a rural worker needs to be readily available at most times and needs to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day and night in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice, or to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops or products. Welfare of Beef Herd 5.10. Agricultural welfare requirements in the documentation submitted with the application it is suggested that there is a need for another dwelling at Bolter End Farm in order to support the beef herd, the shoot and outdoor-calving cows. 5.11. Based the information provided and site visits the welfare requirements of the beef cattle are well-provided for by the workers occupying the existing dwellings at both Bolter End Farm and Roundwood Farm. No evidence was provided to suggest that the existing herd management is suffering from a lack of supervision or that the existing set-up cannot continue in its current form. The plans include the housing of more cows during winter months; to ensure maximum control over feed intake and to increase milk yields. The applicant advised that this will lead to the need to calve more cows outside during the summer months, which it is suggested will give rise to the need to have a worker living in a dwelling more centrally located on the grazing land. 5.12. It is evident that the preferred management is for cows to calve cows indoors whenever possible – the enterprise currently operates about 90% of cows calved in the buildings at Bolter End Farm. It would appear therefore that there would not be substantial numbers of cows calving outdoors during the summer months. In any event, it is considered that the occupier of Bracken Cottage is able to meet the welfare requirements of any cows calving outside from his existing dwelling, supported by the other workers on the holding as and when required. 5.13. In such circumstance, it is concluded that the welfare requirements of the cattle are met from existing workers’ dwellings. Page 72 The Shoot 5.14. The enterprise development plans also include the rearing of up to 5,000 pheasant poults from about six weeks of age to about 20 weeks. The welfare requirements for these birds are relatively limited by the time they are delivered to the holding and can be met by a worker living off-site and attending to the stock during normal working hours. There is no requirement for a worker to be living near to the birds. 5.15. The proposed dwelling is in an isolated location, some 900m from the main farm yard. The shoot plan provided by the applicant clearly indicates that the game bird pens are located at various points throughout the land and that no one dwelling would be well- placed to oversee all of the pens. 5.16. Much of the perceived need for the dwelling appears to be related to the hospitality needs of the shoot. However, this does not require residential accommodation and could be provided in other ways. Finally, no financial information is available for the shoot and therefore there is no evidence that this element of the business is well- established and able to demonstrate sustainability. 5.17. The applicant asked for further justification to be taken into account namely that the management of the enterprise is to alter and cows will now calve outside at Hanover Hill and all beef calves will be reared through to finished weights (at about 2 years of age). 5.18. It is appreciated that there are proposed changes to the management of the beef herd but, essentially, there are already two workers who are resident on the holding and, whether the cattle calve indoors or outdoors, the welfare needs of these cattle are already well-provided for from the existing workers’ dwellings. 5.19. Thus, the Council’s agricultural consultant could not accept that there is a need to provide a worker’s dwelling alongside a specific field which might (or indeed might not) be used for calving cows in the future. There is no requirement for a worker to live within sight and sound of the livestock; indeed, it is simply not possible to ensure that all cattle are within sight and sound of the worker at all times. Furthermore it is considered standard practice for the stockman to have to travel to the calving field – whether on foot or in a vehicle - and it would be unusual (verging on impossible) for a stockmen to be able to see and hear all of the cattle without having to leave his dwelling. 5.20. The change in management with all calves being retained and fattened does not generate any significant additional welfare requirements and, at the level proposed, would not generate an essential need for a worker to provide out-of-hours supervision. Indeed, in order to develop this element of the enterprise additional buildings may yet be required at Bolter End Farm. 5.21. The Consultant goes on to say: “the need for the dwelling appears to relate to the need for the applicant to have a home of his own and it is argued that this will enable him to continue to work on the farm. It is stated that there is a lack of suitable/affordable housing within the area. However, the essential need for a dwelling as set out in paragraph 55 of the NPPF relates to the essential needs of the livestock; not the needs of the worker. 5.22. The case for the dwelling in this location relies on: • the need for a worker to live near to Hanover Hill to provide for the welfare requirements of the calving cows and the beef herd; and • it then makes economic sense to use this dwelling for the shoot. 5.23. The Council’s consultants does not agree that the proposed management changes in the cattle enterprise generates the need for a third worker’s dwelling in this isolated location. 5.24. The plan to diversify the business to incorporate a shoot is reasonable and accepted, however, there is no essential need for a worker to live on site to support the development of the shoot. Furthermore, the need to locate the shoot facilities in this Page 73 isolated location, some 900m from the main yard area, is not accepted. No detailed information has been provided which demonstrates why: • none of the existing buildings could be utilised to incorporate facilities for the shoot; or • the new facilities could not be sited closer to the existing yard. 5.25. The additional information provided has been considered but does not change the conclusions previously reached that there is no essential need for a third worker’s dwelling at Bolter End Farm. Other considerations 5.26. It is also necessary for the Council to consider whether or not there are any other planning matters which need to be taken into account. In this case the site was previously occupied by a building which historically was in part occupied as a dwelling although in later years it was solely in agricultural use. This building was damaged in the 1987 hurricane and subsequently demolished. 5.27. In planning terms the demolition of the previous building on the site represents an abandonment of the site and any previous use to which it was put; effectively returning it to white/agricultural land. Given the lack of any usable structure on the site there is nothing on which a conversion can be based and although the site was once developed there is no planning justification for allowing any new building in an isolated rural location that is unacceptable in other policy respects. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the area taking into account the sites location in the Chilterns AONB Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G3 (General Design Policy), G8 (Detailed Design Guidance and Local Amenity), G10 (Landscaping), G11 (Trees and Hedgerows), T2 (On-site Parking and Servicing), L1 (The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and H19 (Residents Amenity Space and Gardens) Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS7 (Rural Settlements and Rural Areas), CS17 (Environmental Assets) and CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place- Shaping and Design)

5.28. Policy G3 (General Design Policy) of the Local Plan requires development proposals to achieve a high standard of design and layout that respects and reflects the local urban context so as to maintain and reinforce its distinctiveness and particular character and where possible enhance the established character. 5.29. Policy G3 has wide application in the NPPF in particular section 7 and paragraphs 61 and 64. Paragraph 61 identifies that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations and states that planning policies should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the built environment. Paragraph 64 notes that planning permission should be refused for development that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. 5.30. Policy L1 (Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the adopted Local Plan describes AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) as areas of high scenic quality, which in landscape terms are intended to enjoy equal status with National Parks. However, unlike National Parks, the promotion of recreation is not an objective of their designation. The primary purpose of the AONB designation is the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape, which is intended to conserve and enhance its distinctive landscape character and natural beauty and is broadly consistent with the NPPF. 5.31. Policy L1 seeks to maintain the special character of the Chilterns AONB. Any proposal would be expected to respect the special character and appearance of the Chilterns AONB and display the highest standards of design, whilst protecting the natural environment.

Page 74 5.32. Policy G10 (Landscaping) and G11 (Trees and Hedgerows) relate to existing landscape features including trees and hedgerows. Developments are required to retain and not put under undue pressure existing trees and hedgerows of good quality and/or visual significance, or those which will become so through the development. Adequate provision should be made within developments for the incorporation of appropriate landscaping as an integral part of the development. 5.33. The proposed dwelling is a traditionally styled single storey barn style building on an L-shaped plan and would be of a similar size and configuration to the building that was demolished in 1987. Its position on the site has been slightly amended at the request of the Council’s landscape officer to provide more room for boundary planting on the western boundary of the site and to avoid neighbouring trees. Subject to the use of appropriate materials the design of the building is considered to be acceptable given the sites sensitive isolate rural location. However the proposal will undoubtable change the appearance of the site and has the potential to result in a domestification of the site which in turn could impact the rural amenities of the area and the special character of the Chilterns AONB. 5.34. A photographic landscape appraisal has been submitted with the application. It is noted that the red edge of the application site is confined to the area immediately around the proposed building and that the site is shielded from views to the north and east by the adjacent copse. However, it will be visible in views from the public footpaths located to the south and west. On this basis providing the residential curtilage is retained within the red edge, and the site is suitably landscape, including the introduction of suitably located trees within the proposed boundaries and hedgerows it is considered that the special character of the AONB will be retained. The extent of the residential curtilage and landscaping details can both be controlled by condition should permission be forthcoming. Impact on the amenities of Neighbouring Residential Properties Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G3 (General Design Policy), G8 (Detailed Design Guidance and Local Amenity); Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place-Shaping and Design); 5.35. Given the sites isolated position it will have no impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties although those located close to the entrance track may experience a slight increase in traffic and general activity. Future occupiers of converted dwelling will be provided with an acceptable level of amenity. 5.36. The proposed dwelling is likely to result in a small increase in traffic generate by the site, although this would be to some extent offset by the occupier not traveling to the farm from outside the site. 5.37. There is sufficient room within the site for parking to serve the needs of the dwelling. Other Issues

Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS17 (Environmental Assets); Adopted delivery and Site allocations Plan (DPD) July 2013: DM13 (Conservation and enhancement of sites, habitats and Species of Biodiversity and Geodiversity Importance) and DM18 (Carbon Reduction and Water Efficiency).

Carbon Reduction and Water Efficiency 5.38. Following the Adoption of the Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (July 2013) and in particular policy DM18 (Carbon Reduction and Water Efficiency) it is considered necessary to impose a condition to secure the required 15% reduction in carbon emissions as well as reducing future demand for water associated with the proposed dwelling. Given that the new dwelling is intend to achieve Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes this should not be an issue. CIL Page 75 5.39. The application is accompanied by a CIL form which will be assessed independently of this application. Ecological Interests 5.40. The proposal raised no issues connected with ecological interests subject to an appropriate landscaping condition. Given the elevated isolated location of the site external lighting could have a negative impact on the rural amenities of the site and the AONB in general, this too could be controlled by condition. Drainage 5.41. The proposed dwelling would be connected to a sceptic tank with a soakaway for surface water, details of which can be provided by condition should consent be forthcoming.

Recommendation: Application Refused

1 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority insufficient justification has been provided to substantiate an agricultural need for a third dwelling on this holding and in the absence of any other justification the introduction of a new dwelling in this isolated rural location cannot be justified. The proposal is therefore consider to be contrary to Policy C10 (Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt) of the Adopted Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 (as saved, extended and partly replaced). (ALP): C6 (Farm Diversification) and to Policy CS7 (Rural Settlements and Rural Areas) of the Adopted Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD).

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

• offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter

In this instance the applicant/agent was updated of issues after the initial site visit, and was invited to amend the position of the dwelling and to submit additional information in respect of the impact of the development on neighbouring trees and to provide landscaping details. The applicant/agent responded by submitting the requested information. However, while the submitted information was found to be acceptable the proposal is still considered unacceptable in principle as the Council's Agricultural Consultants considers that the 'Functional Test' for the dwelling has not been proven and therefore by definition the proposal fails to conform with adopted development plan policy and is recommended for refusal.

Page 76 Agenda Item 7. Appendix A

15/05044/FUL APPENDIX A

Consultations and Notification Responses

Ward Councillor Preliminary Comments

Councillor I McEnnis This application has my full support, as it will enhance the area by increase of diversity and support the local economy. The development replaces a previous one.

Councillor Mrs Jean E Teesdale Comment: I would like to be kept informed of this application and be sent the officers report prior to the application being determined.

Parish/Town Council Comments/Internal and External Consultees

Lane End Parish Council Comment: No objection.

County Highway Authority Comment: No comments received

Control of Pollution Environmental Health Comment: No objection

Landscape Officer Comment: While acceptable in principle, need to know impact on existing landscape features. Are any trees to be removed? Also, no details have been provided on any proposed hedging, fencing, surfacing and mitigation planting. Planting is particularly important on the southern boundary which appears to be open to views from nearby footpaths at the moment. Suggest revising either size or detailed location of building to allow for tree and hedging along southern boundary plus gapping up of existing hedging. The current location of building (right on boundary) does not allow for this. Need to provide planting to ensure development can be set comfortably within the existing, sensitive landscape.

Comment on 1 st amendment: Landscape Plan and details submitted (25 Feb). Show building moved away from boundary to accommodate boundary hedge planting. This is acceptable as far as it goes but, as in previous comments, should contain some tree planting within the hedgerow to provide a multi-level screen. The idea being not to screen the building fully but to soften its visual impact and provide a setting.

Comment on 2 nd amendment (includes comments on arboricultural issues): We previously asked for tree planting to be included in the proposed native hedgerows. Drawing WDC6 Native Tree Planting shows some locations of trees and some species but we don’t know what is going where or what size they are being planted at. The species are fine but some of the locations are very near the building. If they choose to put a beech or oak that close to the building it will cause problems in the future. I suggest they plant the trees at 10-12cm girth size and that they keep the larger species (beech/oak) further away from the building.

Page 77 Arboricultural Officer Comment: This proposal is likely to affect existing trees in the adjacent woodland, especially as the building has now been moved nearer to it. BS5837:2012 Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment required as well as info on foundations of proposed dwelling so that impact on retained trees can be assessed and any replacement tree planting secured. A former wooded connection between this woodland and the woodland to the south has been lost over time. In Green Infrastructure terms it would be good to reconnect these woodlands by providing some hedge and/or tree planting.

Representations 14 letters received all supporting the application

Page 78 Agenda Item 7. Appendix B

Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Agenda Item 8.

Contact: Alexia Dodd DDI No. 01494 421462

App No : 15/05994/FUL App Type : FUL

Application for : Householder application for excavation works and levelling of rear garden, construction of associated retaining walls. Erection of garden building (part retrospective).

At Calver Ridge, Desborough Avenue, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2ST

Date Received : 09/04/15 Applicant : Mrs Lorraine Khan

Target date for 04/06/15 decision:

1. Summary 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the retention of excavation works and levelling of the rear garden together with the construction of associated retaining walls. In addition the application seeks to retain the detached garden building within the rear garden of Calver Ridge, Desborough Avenue. 1.2. The proposal is considered acceptable. The replacement retaining walls and associated ground levelling works together with the detached outbuilding would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site or the locality. Nor is it considered that the development would be detrimental to any of the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. It therefore complies with all relevant Local Plan Policies and is recommended for approval. 2. The Application 2.1. Planning permission is sought for the retention of excavation works and levelling of the rear garden together with the construction of associated retaining walls. In addition the application seeks to retain the detached garden building within the rear garden of Calver Ridge, Desborough Avenue. 2.2. The Applicant has submitted photos showing that the rear garden of Calver Ridge had retaining walls, terraces and built up flowerbeds. When the lower flower bed was removed it was found the existing retaining walls required attention. This application is for the retention of the new retaining walls and ground works. At the end of the garden a detached outbuilding was constructed on a newly created flat platform by cutting into and down into the valley side. This outbuilding forms part of the current planning application. 2.3. The outbuilding comprises of two rooms (playroom and home office) with a small W.C. 2.4. Desborough Avenue comprises of a mixture of housing types and styles. The gardens are typically long and slope uphill. Therefore many of the gardens have been terraced with retaining walls. To the north of the site there is, a spur road/ private drive providing access to Spring Cottage. The footpath to Tom Burts Hill is located to the front Spring Cottage resulting in the front elevation and garden of this property being openly exposed to the public realm. To the south of the site is No.159A, a detached family house which as benefited from a generous rear extension. The garden steps uphill in a number of terraces from which there is mutual overlooking. 2.5. This application is not for the erection of three dwellings. No dwellings are proposed. It should be noted that the detached outbuilding at No. 159A Desborough Avenue is not part of this application. 2.6. The site is located in an existing residential area.

Page 87 2.7. The site is not within a Conservation Area or the curtilage of a Listed Building. 2.8. Additional plans were sought in respect to the floor plan for the detached outbuilding in addition to photos of the garden showing the terraces and retaining walls. 3. Working with the applicant/agent In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. Additional plans were sought in respect to the floor plan for the detached outbuilding in addition to photos of the garden showing the terraces and retaining walls. 4. Relevant Planning History 4.1 13/08152/FUL, Erection of one 3-bed detached dwelling to the rear of Calver Ridge with associated parking – Refused for the following reasons: 1 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the sub division of the existing plot to facilitate the erection of and additional dwelling would go against the existing grain of development and would result in an cramped, incongruous form of development that would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the present residential character of the area; this in turn would result in the development appearing dominant and out of keeping with the wider street scene and detrimental to the area in general

As such the proposal would be contrary to policies G3 (General Design Policy), G8 (Detailed Design Guidance & Local Amenity) and Appendix 1 of the Adopted Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 (as saved, extended and partially replaced) together with policy CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place-Shaping and Design) of the Core Strategy DPD (Adopted July 2008) and the Housing Intensification SPD. These policies are considered to be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, by reason of its size and siting, and coupled with the gradient of the land, the new dwelling would result in a poor, unneighbourly form of development that would appear dominant and overbearing when viewed from the frontage property at Calver Ridge. In addition, due to the positioning of the main habitable room windows in the first floor, the amenity area for the existing dwelling would also be unduly overlooked and consequently the layout of the site would fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for the existing occupiers by virtue of a lack of private external amenity space.

As a result the proposal is contrary to policies G3 (General Design Policy) and G8 (Detailed Design Guidance and Local Amenity) of the Adopted Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 (as saved, extended and partially replaced) and policy CS19 (Raising the Quality of Place-Shaping and Design) of the Core Strategy Development Planning Document. 4.2 15/05675/FUL, Householder application for demolition of existing garage and construction of 3 storey side extension including basement garage and associated excavation, change in level of the front drive and a two storey rear extension with balcony at first floor level- Approved Page 88

5. Issues and Policy considerations Impact upon character & appearance of the dwelling Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G3, G8, H17 & Appendix 4 Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS19 5.1. It is considered that the proposed retention of the new/ replacement retaining walls and ground works once turned to lawn and planted and established would not appear dissimilar to the old garden. 5.2. The garden terraces would not appear out of keeping having regard to the presents of the old garden terraces and those at the neighbouring dwelling No.159A. 5.3. The application form states that the blockwork would be finished with render and not left exposed. This can be conditioned to ensure that there is satisfactory finish. 5.4. The detached outbuilding is considered to be subservient to the existing dwelling. The external materials used for the construction of the ancillary outbuilding are good quality and would weather well over the years. As such it is considered that the outbuilding would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the property. 5.5. For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling. Impact upon Street Scene/ Character and Appearance of the Location Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G3, G8, H17 Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS19 5.6. In terms of impact upon the street scene a number of dwellings have benefited from significant retaining walls and ground works within their rear gardens. As such it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene or the character of Desborough Avenue. 5.7. The retained outbuilding though located at the top of the garden would not be unduly prominent as it would be located to the rear of the dwelling and is of modest dimensions. In addition due to this position it would not have dominating impact upon the natural lines of sight from the front of dwelling looking north and south along the main axis of Desborough Avenue. 5.8. Therefore it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. Impact upon the Amenity of neighbouring occupiers Adopted Local Plan (ALP): G8, H17, Appendix 1 Core Strategy Development Planning Document (CSDPD): CS19 5.9. From the top of the rear garden there were and continue to be views towards the neighbouring dwellings. As such it is considered that the walls and terraces to be retained would not erode the relationships with the surrounding dwellings. 5.10. The detached outbuilding is not a dwelling. The outbuilding is considered to be incidental to the dwelling. The building can only be accessed via the Applicant’s garden and if permission were to be given should be subject to a condition requiring it to remain ancillary to the dwelling on site. 5.11. In terms of the privacy of the occupiers closest to the outbuilding at No.159A it is noted that the ground floor windows to this dwelling are screened by the garage/shed at the lower end of the garden. With regards to the relationship with the first floor windows there a building-to-building gap of about 25m. This is considered adequate to ensure that the mutual overlooking which presently exists is not significantly worsened by this proposal.

Page 89 5.12. In terms of No.159 and Spring Cottage to the north, they are separated from the site by a road/ drive and the public footpath. It is considered that the retention of the outbuilding would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.

Recommendation: Application Permitted

1 The retaining walls and terraces hereby approved shall be removed and the hillside restored unless the retaining wall are finished in accordance with the schedule of materials stated in Section 9 of application form 15/05994/FUL within three months from the date of this decision. No other materials shall be used without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is in keeping with the location.

2 The development or use hereby permitted shall only be occupied or undertaken in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the existing premises or use and shall at no time be severed and occupied as a separate independent unit. Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a separate independent unit not in accordance with the policies for the area.

3 Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority there shall be no further building-up or increase of the existing ground levels on the site. The ground levels shall be in accordance with the details submitted on plan numbers LK/001/15 received 09.04.2015. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is constructed at an acceptable level with regards to the surrounding area.

4 The development hereby approved shall be in accordancwe with plan numbers WDC1, WDC2, WDC3, LK/001/15. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development at the site.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Wycombe District Council (WDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. WDC work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

• offering a pre-application advice service, • as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, • by adhering to the requirements of the Planning & Sustainability Customer Charter

In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. Additional plans were sought in respect to the floor plan for the detached outbuilding in addition to old family photos of the garden showing the terraces and retaining walls.

Page 90 Agenda Item 8. Appendix A

15/05994/FUL

Consultations and Notification Responses

Ward Councillor Preliminary Comments

Councillor Hill : These 3 houses are back-land development, with no access apart from using a bridle way. If this application is for approval please bring to committee for a site visit. Councillor Clarke : I would not agree to this proposal and I am aware that 3 houses have been built in the back garden without any planning application or planning permission and there are no means for cars to gain access to these houses, although these houses are on a public footpath. Permission has not been sought or granted for vehicles to use this as a form of access.

Parish/Town Council Comments/Internal and External Consultees

High Wycombe Town - Abbey Ward

Representations

One email supporting the application has been received: Having been following the planning application site for a number of years. The development at Calver Ridge in Desborough Ave is next to the property I own and have been living in all my life. The work has been going on for a number of months. I can say the owners of the property and the works that have been carried out so far have been excellent the grounds have been cleared of a lot of household rubbish which was left their from previous owners and garden has been cleared and bushes and grass been cut. The residents have been informed of the works that are being carried out. Previously the neighbouring properties have had a lot of problems with pest control because of the rubbish that was left in the garden. The area has been cleared as I go for walk in the fields behind the house and I feel a lot safer walking there late at night as bushes have been cut. Also having seen the planning application I am trying to work out where the 3 houses in the garden are. I support this development as this has really cleared the area and made it a lot safer for houses around the area and also for walkers and provides a lot more light to neighbouring properties.

Page 91 Agenda Item 8. Appendix B

Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Agenda Item 9.

1. Pre-Planning Committee Training/ Information Sessions` Officer Contact: Alastair Nicholson DDI: 01494 421510 Email: [email protected] Wards affected: All RECOMMENDATION The Committee note that the next pre-committee training/information session is scheduled for 6.00pm on Wednesday 29 th July.

Unless a request to make a pre-application presentation is received it is intended to use this as a member training session. The topic will be a presentation by the Highway Authority on their role in determining planning applications.

Reason for Decision: The pre-Planning Committee information and training sessions are held immediately prior to Committee and provide an opportunity for pre-application presentations, discussions of topical policy issues and training.

Corporate Implications 1.1 Members of both the Planning Committee, and the Regulatory and Appeals Committee, are required to complete a minimum level of planning training each year.

Executive Summary The Committee note that the next pre-committee training/information session is scheduled for 6.00pm on Wednesday 29th July.

Unless a request to make a pre-application presentation is received it is intended to use this as a member training session. The topic covered will either be a presentation by the Highway Authority on their role in determining planning applications.

The presentation will take place in the Committee Room 2.

Community Plan/Council Priorities - Implications 1.2 None directly. Background and Issues 1.3 The Council’s pre-application procedures allow developers to make presentation of their intended development proposals to Council members. Such an event is an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant but not to express views relating to the merits of the proposal. Options 1.4 None. Conclusions 1.5 Members note the recommendation. Background Papers None

Page 96