(Public Pack)Agenda Document for South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee, 27/10/2020 14:30

South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee agenda

Date: Tuesday 27 October 2020

Time: 2.30 pm

Venue: Via Microsoft Teams

Membership:

T Egleton (Chairman), D Anthony, M Bradford, S Chhokar, B Gibbs, P Griffin, G Hollis, M Lewis, Dr W Matthews and R Reed

Webcasting notice

Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the council's website. At the start of the meeting the chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the council is a data controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council’s published policy.

Therefore by entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If members of the public do not wish to have their image captured they should ask the committee clerk, who will advise where to sit.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Legal & Democratic Service Director at [email protected].

Public Speaking

If you have any queries concerning public speaking at Planning Committee meetings, including registering your intention to speak, please speak to a member of the Planning team – [email protected] 01494 732950. Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee here.

Agenda Item Page No

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes 3 - 4 To note the minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2020.

Applications to be Determined

4 PL/20/1685/FA - Land South of Rowley Lane, Wexham, 5 - 32 Buckinghamshire

5 PL/20/0671/OA - Land Adjacent To Limewood Gate, Poyle Lane, 33 - 60 Burnham, Buckinghamshire, SL1 8LE

6 PL/20/2186/FA - 18 Station Parade, Denham Green, Buckinghamshire, 61 - 72 UB9 5ET

7 Date and Time of the next meeting Tuesday 24th November at 2:30PM.

If you would like to attend a meeting, but need extra help to do so, for example because of a disability, please contact us as early as possible, so that we can try to put the right support in place.

For further information please contact: Tom Fowler on 01494 732009, email [email protected]. Agenda Item 3 Buckinghamshire Council South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee

Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON TUESDAY 29 SEPTEMBER 2020 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS, COMMENCING AT 2.30 PM AND CONCLUDING AT 3.56 PM

MEMBERS PRESENT

T Egleton (Chairman), D Anthony, M Bradford, S Chhokar, B Gibbs, P Griffin, G Hollis, M Lewis and Dr W Matthews

Agenda Item

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies had been received from Councillor R Reed.

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor W Matthews declared a personal and prejudicial interest in PL/20/2033/FA as a close associate of the applicant and would leave the meeting during consideration of this item. Councillor M Bradford declared a personal and prejudicial interest in PL/20/2033/FA as a close associate of the applicant and would leave the meeting during consideration of this item.

3 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2020 were agreed as an accurate record.

4 PL/20/2033/FA - 4 SLOUGH ROAD, IVER HEATH, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, SL0 0DR Proposal: Single storey rear extension

Notes  Councillor W Matthews and Councillor M Bradford left the meeting for consideration of this item.  Councillor L Sullivan declared a personal and prejudicial interest as the applicant of the application and would leave the meeting following completion of the Public speaking segment.  The Case Officer confirmed that the Applicant had very recently submitted amended plans and very special circumstances. As the officers needed time to assess these material considerations, the application was considered as submitted and referred to in the report. It was also confirmed that the proposed roof light benefited from Permitted

Page 3 Development.  Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Mr Alan Munro.  Councillor Sullivan left the meeting following the Public speaking segment.

It was proposed by Councillor S Chhokar seconded by Councillor D Anthony and RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused as recommended for the reasons laid out in the report.

5 PL/19/4275/FA - LAND AT REAR OF NO.11 AND FRONTING ON TO, 11 REYNOLDS ROAD, 11 PENN ROAD, BEACONSFIELD, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP9 2PN Proposal: Alteration to front elevation of existing single storey building and change of use from B8 Storage and Distribution unit to Sui-Generis Car Wash and Valet service.

Notes:  Councillor W Matthews and Councillor M Bradford re-joined the meeting.  The Planning Officer recommended that Condition 2 be amended to include the requirement that the development shall be operated in accordance with the submitted transport statement and parking and servicing management plan.  The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of the applicant: Aqua Valet Ltd

It was proposed by Councillor W Matthews, seconded by Councillor G Hollis and RESOLVED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions laid out in the report and the amended condition no 2 noted above.

6 PL/19/4444/FA - 13 COPPERFIELDS, BEACONSFIELD, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP9 2NS Proposal: Four new detached dwellings with associated garages, access, parking and landscaping, following the demolition of the existing dwelling.

Notes:  The Case Officer updated the committee on developments since agenda publication. There had been 3 further letters of objection received, but these did not raise any new/additional material planning considerations.  It was noted that planning permission had been granted on appeal for a similar development at this site previously. This previous scheme was considered relevant in assessing the appropriate level of development on the site and constituted a material consideration in the assessment of this application.  Speaking on behalf of the Objectors: Mr Sebastian Steinfeld  Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Mr David Cox

It was proposed by Councillor W Matthews, seconded by Councillor M Bradford and RESOLVED:

That the application be delegated to the Director of Planning and Environment to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report and any others which he considers appropriate and the satisfactory prior completion of a Legal Agreement relating to mitigation of Burnham Beeches SAC. If the Legal Agreement cannot be completed, that the application be refused for such reasons as considered appropriate.

Page 4 Agenda Item 4 Buckinghamshire Council www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk

Report to South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee

Site Location: Land South of Rowley Lane, Wexham, Buckinghamshire

Proposal: Residential development consisting of 5 no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping, following demolition of existing buildings associated with the livery and storage uses on site. ______

Application Number: PL/20/1685/FA

Applicant: Daniel Family Homes

Case Officer: Richard Regan

Ward affected: Stoke Poges & Wexham

Parish Council: Wexham Parish Council

Valid date: 1 June 2020

Determination date: 27 October 2020

Recommendation: Delegate the application to the Director of Planning and Environment to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report and any others which he considers appropriate and the satisfactory prior completion of a Legal Agreement relating to mitigation of Burnham Beeches SAC. If the Legal Agreement cannot be completed the application be refused for such reasons as considered appropriate.

______

1.0 Summary & Recommendation/ Reason for Planning Committee Consideration 1.1 The application proposes the redevelopment of the site, which lies within the Green Belt, to provide a residential development consisting of 5 dwellings following the demolition of all existing buildings.

Page 5

1.2 The proposal to redevelop this previously developed site would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt or its purposes. The proposal would therefore meet with the exception to inappropriate development set out in set out in point G of para. 145 of the NPPF and no objections are raised with regard to the impact on the Green Belt.

1.3 Planning permission has previously been granted on part of this site for its redevelopment to provide 2 detached dwellings under reference 16/01262/FUL.

1.4 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee following discussions between Officer and the Chairman. In the Interests of the wider public it is considered that the application would benefit from further scrutiny.

1.5 The recommendation for this application is conditional permission.

2.0 Description of Proposed Development 2.1 The application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide a residential development consisting of 5no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping, following demolition of existing buildings. The proposed development involves the land edged in red in the submitted plans. None of the land edged in blue on the submitted plans is to be developed, and would remain as open paddock land.

2.2 It is important to note that planning permission has previously been granted on part of this site for its redevelopment to provide 2 detached dwellings under reference 16/01262/FUL. That scheme, which was allowed at appeal, incorporated the southern half of the section of the site which has buildings on it. It is considered that that permission constitutes an important material consideration in the assessment of this current application.

2.3 The main differences between that previously approved scheme and the current application are that this current application is larger, and incorporates the northern section of the site, and it is proposed to create 4 dwellings on the southern half of the site, as opposed to the 2 which were allowed at appeal.

2.4 All of the existing buildings and structures on the site would be demolished in their entirety, and replaced with 5 new dwellings. The proposed plots 1 to 4, on the southern half of the site would be housed in two separate buildings, i.e they would in effect be two pairs of semi detached dwellings. These buildings would be identical in terms of their size, height, scale, massing and design, as those that were granted planning permission at appeal under application 16/01262/FUL. The only difference being that they would operate as two pairs of semi’s, as opposed to two single detached dwellings.

Page 6 2.5 The dwellings are low level, single storey buildings, with a maximum height of 3.3m, displaying a contemporary design approach which incorporates the use of flat roofs.

2.6 The northern section of the site, which was not included in the previously approved scheme, 16/01262/FUL, would accommodate 1 further dwelling, which would be of the same height, scale and design approach as those on plots 1-4. All other existing buildings would be demolished.

2.7 The application is accompanied by: a) Planning Statement b) Ecology Appraisal c) Surface and foul water drainage strategy d) Transport Statement e) Tree Report f) Waste and Recycling Strategy

2.8 Amended plans have been received during the course of the application which omit the retention of the existing buildings at the northern end of the site, which were originally intended to serve as storage buildings for the proposed dwellings. These buildings will now be demolished as part of the scheme, and small shed will be sited within each of the proposed gardens.

3.0 Relevant Planning History 3.1 Relevant planning history for the site: 01/01291/EUC – Certificate refused - 31 May 2002 - Certificate of Lawfulness for the use of existing buildings (numbered 14-17 and 24-25 on the submitted plan) as livery stables _ the use of existing buildings (numbered 1, 2, 6, 40 and 45 on the submitted plan) for the storage of furniture. Part allowed at appeal.

07/01673/FUL – Refused Permission - 1 November 2007 - Replacement mobile home.

08/01080/FUL – Refused Permission - 19 August 2008 - Replacement Mobile Home

15/02354/FUL – Refused Permission - 1 February 2016 - Redevelopment of site to provide four detached dwellings with associated access and landscaping.

16/01262/FUL – Refused Permission - 24 August 2016 - Redevelopment of site to provide two detached dwellings with associated access and landscaping. Allowed at appeal.

4.0 Summary of Representations 4.1 Letters of objection have been received from 17 separate households regarding the proposed development. A summary of consultation responses and representations made on the application can be viewed in Appendix A.

Page 7

5.0 Policy Considerations and Evaluation • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019. • Planning Practice Guidance • National Design Guidance, October 2019 • South Bucks Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted February 2011 • South Bucks District Local Plan - Adopted March 1999 Consolidated September 2007 and February 2011; • South Bucks District Local Plan Appendix 6 (Parking standards) • South Bucks District Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - Adopted October 2008 • Chiltern and South Bucks Townscape Character Study 2017 • Chiltern and South Bucks Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule • Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Mitigation Strategy, March 2020 • The publication version of the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2036 was approved at Council on 14 May 2019 and it was agreed that this should be endorsed as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It was submitted for independent examination on 26 September 2019. However, given its current stage, only limited weight can be given to this document.

Principle and Location of Development Core Strategy Policies: CP1 (Housing provision and delivery) Local Plan Saved Policies: GB1 (Green Belt boundaries and the control over development in the Green Belt) H2 (Housing allocation)

5.1 The site falls within the Green Belt. The NPPF states at paragraph 133 that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open: the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 143 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

5.2 The NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are provided in Policy GB1 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 145 of the NPPF. The redevelopment of a site to provide a residential development does not fall within the list of exceptions as set out in policy GB1 of the Local Plan. However, the NPPF does include an exception for this type of development as set out in point G of para. 145 (set out below): 'limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:

Page 8 - not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development, or - not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.'

5.3 For a development to meet the above exception it would need to constitute 'previously developed land' (Brownfield Land). In this case the southern half of the site i.e. land on which plots 1 to 4 are located, has previously been considered ‘previously developed land’ in the assessment of application 16/01262/FUL, and this remains the case. In terms of the northern half of the site, where plot 5 is located, and which didn’t form part of the previously approved scheme 16/01262/FUL, it is considered that this land also constitutes ‘previously developed land’, by virtue of the appeal decision notice for 01/01291/EUC, whereby the Inspector identifies all the land within the current application site, as being used in connection with the livery stables. As such, an assessment needs to be made as to whether the proposal to redevelop this site would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Green Belt Local Plan Saved Policies: GB1 (Green Belt boundaries and the control over development in the Green Belt)

5.4 In terms of its impact on openness, the two buildings that would house units 1 to 4 would have exactly the same amount of physical impact on the openness of the Green Belt as that of the previously approved scheme. The buildings are identical to those previously approved in terms of their size, height, scale and massing. It was previously considered that these two buildings would have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than that of the buildings that they would replace, with them being no higher than the existing buildings, and actually representing a reduction in footprint of built form. It is acknowledged that these buildings would now operate as 4 dwellings as opposed to 2, but given the previous use of the site as livery stables, and the level and type of activity that could have been associated with that use, it is considered that the increase in the number of dwellings would not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.

5.5 In terms of the proposed dwelling on plot 5, which represents the additional new built form over that of the previously approved scheme, this dwelling displays a limited ridge height of 3.3m, which is no greater than that of the buildings that it would replace, and it would result in a reduction in the number of buildings located in the northern half of the site, as well as a reduction in the footprint and floorspace over that which currently exists. Given this, combined with the proposed limited height, scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling on plot 5, it is considered that physically, this building would have no greater

Page 9 impact on the openness of the Green Belt, than the buildings that it replaces. In addition to this, the use of this building as a residential dwelling would have no greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt when compared to the existing use of the site, which can lawfully be used as a livery.

5.6 The scheme also involves the widening of the existing access road. This aspect of the scheme is the same as that previously approved. Given the nature of the works, it is considered that they would remain acceptable as they would not reduce the openness of the Green Belt.

5.7 Overall, when looking at the site in its entirety, the proposed development would result in a significant reduction in the number of buildings on the site, which is beneficial to the openness of the Green Belt. It would also lead to a reduction in the spread of built form across the site, which is a further benefit to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would also lead to a total reduction of approximately 31% in the amount of floorspace being provided on the site by buildings. This reduced level of floorspace, when combined with the limited height, scale and massing of the new buildings, is considered to benefit the openness of the Green Belt.

5.8 With regard to the schemes impact on the purposes of the Green Belt, it is important to note that when assessing the previous scheme on the southern half of the site, the appeal Inspector considered that the proposed dwellings would have been confined to parts of the site which were already occupied by buildings or hardstanding. Furthermore, the Inspector considered that the residential curtilages of each dwelling would respect existing boundaries and would not extend into the adjacent paddocks. With regards to concerns over domestic paraphernalia within the site, the Inspector considered that there would be potential for a similar quantity of paraphernalia associated with the approved equestrian and storage uses. For these reasons the Inspector considered that the proposed development would not have undermined the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, nor would have it conflicted with the purpose of the Green Belt to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, nor the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

5.9 When assessing the current application, the proposed dwellings are again restricted to those parts of the site which are already occupied by buildings and hardstanding, and the residential curtilages would not extend into the adjacent paddocks. The entire site can be used for Livery purposes, so it is considered that there would again be similar levels of paraphernalia associated with both existing and proposed uses. As such, overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not undermined or prejudice any of the purpose of including land within the Green Belt.

5.10 Therefore overall, it is considered that the proposal to redevelop this previously developed site would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green

Page 10 Belt or its purposes. The proposal would therefore meet with the exception to inappropriate development set out in set out in point G of para. 145 of the NPPF and no objections are raised with regard to the impact on the Green Belt.

5.11 Concern has been raised that the allowing of this application would set a precedent for other applications for new dwellings in the Green Belt, however, every application must be assessed on its own merits and set of individual circumstances.

Transport matters and parking Core Strategy Policies: CP7 (Accessibility and transport) Local Plan Saved Policies: TR5 (Access, highways work and traffic generation) TR7 (Traffic generation)

5.12 In dealing with the transport matters, the appeal Inspector considered that the previous scheme was acceptable from the point of view of the vehicular access arrangements. This current scheme proposes the same access and vehicular arrangements as that previous application.

5.13 It is acknowledged that this current application differs in that it proposes a higher number of dwellings, however the Councils Highway Officer has assessed the current application, and they have advised that the existing vehicular access benefits from visibility splays in line with current Manual for Streets guidance, and due to the access point being widened to 4.8m, which will allow for simultaneous two-way traffic flow of vehicles alongside pedestrians and cyclists, they are satisfied with the proposed access arrangements and consider that they are acceptable and would not lead to any adverse highway implications or danger.

5.14 Each dwelling would be provided with 2 off street parking spaces, thereby meeting the Councils parking standards.

5.15 The Councils Waste Team have advised that the proposed waste collection arrangements are acceptable, with the refuse vehicle reversing up the access drive to the bin collection point. They do note that the distance that future occupiers need to transport their bins to the collection point is greater than ideally desired, but this would be a matter for future occupants to take into consideration when deciding whether to occupy a dwelling on the site, and it does not warrant refusing the application. It is noted that if the access drive were to be adopted, then the refuse vehicle would enter the site fully, but this would be a matter for the owners of the site to resolve. As such, overall, it is considered that the bin collection arrangements are acceptable, and do not represent any grounds for refusing the scheme.

Page 11 5.16 In light of the above and the fact that the Highways Officer raise no objections to the proposals, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access arrangements are adequate enough to serve the proposed new dwellings, the increase in vehicular movements can be accommodated within the existing highway network, and overall, the proposal would not adversely impact upon the highway safety.

Raising the quality of place making and design Core Strategy Policies: CP8 (Built and historic environment) Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The Use, Design and Layout of Development) EP4 (Landscaping) EP6 (Designing to Reduce Crime) H9 (Residential development and layout)

5.17 When assessing the previous application, the appeal Inspector considered that although the appeal site is surrounded by open fields on three sides, it already contains a number of buildings. The Inspector went on to advised that the proposed dwellings would be low profile structures with flat roofs which would not increase the quantum of built development within the site, and as such, they would not appear substantially more prominent than the existing buildings when seen from the surrounding area. When assessing this current application, the proposed dwellings would again be low profile structures with flat roofs, and the quantum of built development would actually be less in this instance. As such, it is considered that the current proposal would not appear more prominent than the existing buildings when seen from the surrounding area.

5.18 The Inspector also considered the widening works to the access road, advising that the visual impact of this would be relatively minor in the context of the surroundings and would not have an urbanising effect on the fields over which it would pass. The areas of paddock would remain and the bridleways would be unaffected. Rural character would therefore be maintained. Given that the proposed works to the access road remain the same as the previous scheme, it is considered that these works would again have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the site and locality in general.

5.19 The Inspector further advised that whilst accepting that the site would assume a domestic appearance as a result of the proposed development and that this would be in contrast to the existing equestrian buildings, it would not undermine the character of the countryside in this location as it would not be a visually prominent development. It is considered that this would continue to be the case for the current application, with the site circumstances not having changed since the Inspectors decision, resulting in the fact that the development would not be visually prominent, and therefore would have limited visual presence within the locality.

Page 12 5.20 As such, it is important to note that no objections were raised in relation to the design and appearance of the previously approved scheme, or its impact on the character of the area. In terms of this current application, it follows the same design and architectural approach as that previously approved scheme.

5.21 Overall therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely impact upon the character and appearance of the site, street scene or locality in general.

Amenity of existing and future residents Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The use, design and layout of development) EP5 (Sunlight and daylight) H11 (Alterations and extensions to dwellings)

5.22 Given the significant distances that would be retained to the neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposed development would not lead to any unacceptable impacts upon their amenities in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy, or appearing over dominant and obtrusive.

5.23 It is acknowledged that concern has been raised with regard to potential noise and smell impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed development. However, given the existing lawful use of the site is as a Livery, it is not considered that the proposed new use residential use of the site would lead to any great levels of noise disturbance or bad odour. Such issues are more likely to be associated with the lawful use of the site, and therefore the proposed development would actually reduce such matters arising.

5.24 Some concerns have been raised about the proposed development posing as a security risk to existing properties, but it is considered that the introduction of dwellings on this site would in fact increase surveillance of the surrounding land, thereby improving its security.

5.25 It is noted that concerns have been raised regarding damage to existing hedgerows that may be within neighbouring properties. This issue was also raised during the appeal of the previous application. In dealing with this matter, the Inspector advised that there was limited evidence to confirm that this would necessarily be the case, and in any case, allegations of damage in the future would be a private matter between the relevant parties. It is considered therefore that this is not a material planning consideration.

Environmental issues Core Strategy Policies: CP13 (Environmental and resource management) Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The use, design and layout of development)

Page 13 5.26 The Councils’ Environmental Health Officer raises no objections to the proposals from a contamination point of view.

Flooding and drainage Core Strategy Policies: CP13 (Environmental and resource management)

5.27 The application is accompanied by a Surface and Foul Water drainage Strategy. The site does not fall with an area of high risk in terms of surface water flooding, and it located within Flood Risk Zone 1, which is the area with the lowest probability of flooding. The proposed development will incorporate an appropriate surface drainage strategy which will ensure that the proposed development would not lead to any increased risk of flooding within the site or to any neighbouring properties.

5.28 The drainage strategy also sets out that the proposed development would be connected to the public mains sewer that runs through the northern part of the application site. Correspondence included in the submitted report indicates that there is sufficient capacity within the sewer to cater for the new dwellings.

Landscape and visual Impact Core Strategy Policies: CP8 (Built and historic environment) CP9 (Natural environment) Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The use, design and layout of development) EP4 (Landscaping)

5.29 The Councils’ Tree Officer has assessed the application and has advised that he raises no objections to the proposals from a tree point of view.

5.30 It is already been set out within this report that it is considered that the proposed development, whilst altering the appearance of the site, would not adversely impact upon its overall character and appearance. A detailed landscape scheme can be secured by way of condition, in order to ensure that sufficient levels of natural vegetation and landscaping are maintained on site.

Ecology Core Strategy Policies: CP9 (Natural environment) CP13 (Environmental and resource management).

5.31 The application is accompanied by an Ecological appraisal. This sets out that In terms the site is made up of scrub and standard grassland which do not qualify as NERC Priority Habitats. None of the trees on site are noteworthy and have a low ecological value, any impacts from the loss of habitats is therefore

Page 14 negligible, and no protected species would be adversely impacted upon by the proposed development.

5.32 The appraisal does set out that there is in fact an opportunity to significantly improve the site for wildlife, and it is considered that such measures can be obtained by way of condition and the submission of an ecological enhancement scheme.

5.33 Core Policy 9 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out that the highest priority will be given to the integrity of Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Para 3.3.11 of the Core Strategy also states that "where a specific development could result in significant effects on the SAC, a Project level (regulation 48) HRA will need to be carried out by the developer when the planning application is submitted to determine whether mitigation measures are required." This is also consistent with Section 15 of the NPPF relating to 'Conserving and enhancing the natural environment'.

5.34 Natural England has been consulted on this application and raises concerns regarding the impact on the Burnham Beeches SAC. Natural England state that when there is sufficient scientific uncertainty about the likely effects of the planning application under consideration, the precautionary principle is applied to fully protect the qualifying features of the European Site designated under the Habitats Directive.

5.35 Due to new evidence on the impacts of recreational and urban growth at Burnham Beeches SAC carried out by Footprint Ecology as part of the emerging Local Plan, Natural England recognises that new housing within 5.6km of the Burnham Beeches SAC can be expected to result in an increase in recreation pressure. The 5.6km zone represents the core area around the SAC where increases in the number of residential properties will require Habitats Regulations Assessment. Mitigation measures will be necessary to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC from the cumulative impacts of development.

5.36 Impacts to the SAC as a result of increasing recreation pressure are varied and have long been a concern. These impacts, which have the potential to adversely affects its interest features, include: Contamination (e.g. dog fouling, litter, spread of plant pathogens); Increased fire risk; Trampling/wear (e.g. loss of vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, damage to trees from climbing); Harvesting (e.g. fungi, wood); Difficulties in managing the site (e.g. maintaining the grazing regime); Disturbance (e.g. affecting the distribution of livestock and deer).

5.37 Natural England confirm that, in light of the new evidence relating to the recreation impact zone of influence, planning authorities must apply the

Page 15 requirements of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to housing development within 5.6km of the SAC boundary. The authority must decide whether a particular proposal, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC.

5.38 Given the above, the Council has carried out an Appropriate Assessment for the proposed development. This concludes that without mitigation measures the development is likely to have a significant effect upon the integrity of the SAC with the result that the Council would be required to refuse this planning application. 5.39 In order to mitigate such impacts the Council has adopted a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS). The Council consider that the SAMMS, which is supported by Natural England, is robust and capable of mitigating the likely significant effects of the proposal over 500 metres and up to 5.6 kilometres provided the proposal pays a contribution towards the SAMMS. Natural England has also confirmed that subject to a legal agreement to secure this financial contribution they do not raise an objection on grounds relating to its impact on Burnham Beeches.

5.40 The applicant has agreed to the financial contribution and a legal agreement is being drafted to secure it. Provided this legal agreement is completed, then it successfully addresses the schemes impacts on Burnham Beeches.

Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Core Strategy Policies: CP6 (Local infrastructure needs)

5.41 The development is a type of development where CIL would be chargeable. 5.42 It is considered that other than the financial contribution towards the Burnham Beeches Mitigation Strategy there would not be other types of infrastructure that will be put under unacceptable pressure by the development to justify financial contributions or the direct provision of infrastructure.

6.0 Weighing and balancing of issues / Overall Assessment 6.1 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.

6.2 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,

Page 16 b. Any local finance considerations, so far as they are material to the application (such as CIL if applicable), and, c. Any other material considerations

6.3 The NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and for decision making, setting out approving development proposals that accord with up to date development plans without delay.

6.4 Section 2, paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three overarching objectives, these are set out as Economic, Social and Environmental objectives. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would align with the aims of sustainable development in line with section 2 of the NPPF. The proposal would fulfil economic objectives in terms of supporting growth. The proposal would result in the creation of temporary jobs during the construction phase of the proposed development. A social objective would also be met as the proposal would provide additional housing and would make effective and efficient use of land, whilst giving regard to the local built environment.

6.5 The proposed development would therefore accord with both National and Local Plan Policies and is subsequently recommended for conditional permission.

6.6 Local Planning Authorities, when making decisions of a strategic nature, must have due regard, through the Equalities Act, to reducing the inequalities which may result from socio-economic disadvantage. In this instance, it is not considered that this proposal would disadvantage any sector of society to a harmful extent.

6.7 It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned in the event of planning permission being granted in this instance.

7.0 Working with the applicant / agent 7.1 In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF (2019) the Council approach decision-taking in a positive and creative way taking a proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions and work proactively with applicants to secure developments.

7.3 In this instance amended plans were submitted during the course of the application which reduced the overall resultant level of built form on the site by removing all existing buildings.

Page 17 Recommendation: Delegate the application to the Director of Planning and Environment to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report and any others which he considers appropriate and the satisfactory prior completion of a Legal Agreement relating to mitigation of Burnham Beeches SAC. If the Legal Agreement cannot be completed the application be refused for such reasons as considered appropriate.

Subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. (SS01)

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any statutory amendment or re-enactment thereof).

2. No construction shall take place above ground level until a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

3. No development shall proceed above ground level until a specification of all finishing materials to be used in any hard surfacing of the application site is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be constructed using the approved materials. (SM02)

Reason: To ensure that such works do not detract from the development itself or from the appearance of the locality in general. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

4. Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on drawings already submitted, prior to the occupation of the development a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include indications of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the site and details, including crown spreads, of those to be retained. None of the trees, shrubs or hedgerows shown for retention shall be removed or felled, lopped or topped within a period of five years from the date of this permission, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies EP3 and EP4 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer.)

5. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development,

Page 18 whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development, whichever is the later, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development. (Policies EP3 and EP4 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer.)

6. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the arboricultural method statement submitted and approved as part of the planning application and under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist in order to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. (ST18)

Reason: To maintain the visual amenity of the area. (Policies EP4 and L10 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer.)

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Classes A, B & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) , no enlargement, improvement or other alteration (including the erection of a garage, stable, loosebox or coach-house within the curtilage) of or to any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission, shall be carried out nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission. (SD14A)

Reason: The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt where strict control over development is necessary in order to maintain the openness of the Green Belt. (Policy GB1 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Surface and Foul Water Drainage Strategy dated July 2020, submitted and approved as part of this application.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory disposal and storage of surface water from the site and to ensure that surface water is managed in a sustainable manner, in accordance with Paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP13 of the South Bucks District Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers.

9. No other part of the development shall begin until the existing means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council's guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access within Highway Limits" 2013.

Page 19

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan) refer).

10. No other part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of the carriageway and a point 43 metres along the edge of the carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.

Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer).

11. The scheme for parking and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway. (Policy TR7 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer).

12. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments.

iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

Page 20 iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (Adopted March 1999) refer).

13. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together with any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall be implemented.

14. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination: In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 12, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 12, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 13.

Page 21 15. Prior to any works above ground level, a scheme of ecological enhancements shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure a measurable net gain in biodiversity will be achieved. The scheme will include details of new landscape planting of known benefit to wildlife and provision of artificial roost features, including bird and bat boxes, hedgehog domes and other appropriate features.

Reason: In the interests of improving biodiversity in accordance with NPPF and Core Policy 9: Natural Environment of the South Buckinghamshire Core Strategy and to ensure the survival of protected and notable species protected by legislation that may otherwise be affected by the development.

16. The development to which this planning permission relates shall be undertaken solely in accordance with the following drawings:

List of approved plans: Received Plan Reference 3 Sep 2020 D-03 B 3 Sep 2020 D-08 A 9 Jul 2020 D-10 A 9 Jul 2020 D-01 A 9 Jul 2020 D-06 9 Jul 2020 D-07 9 Jul 2020 D-09 A 9 Jul 2020 D-02 A

INFORMATIVE(S)

1. Due to the close proximity of the site to existing residential properties, the applicants' attention is drawn to the Considerate Constructors Scheme initiative. This initiative encourages contractors and construction companies to adopt a considerate and respectful approach to construction works, so that neighbours are not unduly affected by noise, smells, operational hours, vehicles parking at the site or making deliveries, and general disruption caused by the works.

By signing up to the scheme, contractors and construction companies commit to being considerate and good neighbours, as well as being clean, respectful, safe, environmentally conscious, responsible and accountable. The Council highly recommends the Considerate Constructors Scheme as a way of avoiding problems and complaints from local residents and further information on how to participate can be found at www.ccscheme.org.uk. (SIN35)

2. It is an offence under S151 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) for vehicles leaving the development site to carry mud onto the public highway. Facilities should therefore be provided and used on the development site for cleaning the wheels of vehicles before they leave the site. (SIH23)

Page 22 3. No vehicles associated with the building operations on the development site shall be parked on the public highway so as to cause an obstruction. Any such wilful obstruction is an offence under S137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended). (SIH24)

4. The applicant is advised that the off-site works will need to be constructed under a Section 184 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This Small Works Agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. A minimum period of 3 weeks is required to process the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a written request. Please contact Development Management at the following address for information or apply online via Buckinghamshire Council's website at www.buckscc.gov.uk/services/transport-and-roads/highways- developmentmanagement/apply-online/section-184-licence/

Highways Development Management 6th Floor, County Hall Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY Telephone 01296 382416

Page 23 APPENDIX A: Consultation Responses and Representations

Parish Council Comments The application is sited within the Green Belt and as it does not comply with GB1, by totally effecting the characteristics of the surrounding area. GB2 , as the buildings would be totally demolished and not refurbished for use. GB3, there is no “limited infilling” with this application, on that basis it goes totally against the Policy. GB9, as the proposals would compromise the overriding aim of the Green Belt in that the character and amenities of the area to one of Urbanisation. GB11, This application is not for a single existing dwelling to be rebuilt, but a community to be built, totally against the Local Green Belt Policy. The Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG2) states that planning will only be given where ”exceptional circumstances exist” there are none in this application. We therefore object to this Planning application.

Consultation Responses

Natural England: Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England’s advice Objection - Further information required to determine impacts on designated sites - Development within 5.6 kilometres of Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 5.6 kilometres

Between 500 metres to 5.6km from Burnham Beeches SAC, a Habitats Regulations Assessment is required to determine Likely Significant Effect. Mitigation measures will be necessary to rule out adverse effects on integrity. This should be in line with emerging Local Plan Policy DM NP3, which requires proposals to;

1. Make financial contributions towards the Burnham Beeches Access Management Scheme, or any subsequent scheme which replaces this; and 2. Demonstrate that no adverse impacts on the SAC will arise as a result of additional visitors to the SAC from the development. Mitigation will need to be determined in agreement with Natural England.

Natural England requires further information in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation.

Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

South Bucks adopted Core Strategy’s Core policy 9 Natural Environment states “where a specific development could result in significant effects on the SAC, a Project level (regulation 48) HRA will need to be carried out by the developer when the planning application is submitted to determine whether mitigation measures are required.” When there is sufficient scientific uncertainty about the likely effects of the planning application under

Page 24 consideration, the precautionary principle is applied to fully protect the qualifying features of the European Site designated under the Habitats Directive.

Due to new evidence on the impacts of recreational and urban growth at Burnham Beeches SAC carried out by Footprint Ecology in 2019, Natural England recognises that new housing within 5.6km of the internationally designated Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) can be expected to result in an increase in recreation pressure. The 5.6km zone proposed within Policy DM NP3 of the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan represents the core area around the SAC where increases in the number of residential properties will require Habitats Regulations Assessment. Mitigation measures will be necessary to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC from the cumulative impacts of development.

Impacts to the SAC as a result of increasing recreation pressure are varied and have long been a concern. These impacts, which have the potential to adversely affects its interest features, include: • Contamination (e.g. dog fouling, litter, spread of plant pathogens); • Increased fire risk; • Trampling/wear (e.g. loss of vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, damage to trees from climbing); • Harvesting (e.g. fungi, wood); • Difficulties in managing the site (e.g. maintaining the grazing regime); • Disturbance (e.g. affecting the distribution of livestock and deer).

In light of the new evidence relating to the recreation impact zone of influence, planning authorities must apply the requirements of Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to housing development within 5.6km of the SAC boundary. The authority must decide whether a particular proposal, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC.

Development in accordance with the adopted South Bucks Core Strategy’s Core policy 9, emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan’s DM NP3 Policy and emerging Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy would not be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC because they will provide, or make an appropriate contribution to, acceptable avoidance and mitigation measures. The planning authority can grant planning permission to such developments in accordance with the Regulations.

However, development proposals which are not in accordance with the above would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. In accordance with Regulation 61, before granting planning permission for such a proposal, the planning authority must undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the SAC, in light of the site’s conservation objectives. The conservation objectives are to maintain and, where not in favourable condition, to restore, the Atlantic acidophilous beech forest habitat.

Page 25 Consequently, it is Natural England’s view that the planning authority will not be able to ascertain that this proposed development as it is currently submitted would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. In combination with other plans and projects, the development would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of the habitat by reason of increased access to the site including access for general recreation and dog- walking. There being alternative solutions to the proposal and there being no imperative reasons of overriding public interest to allow the proposal, despite a negative assessment, the proposal will not pass the tests of Regulation 62.

Tree Officer: I have reviewed the submitted tree report by John Cromar’s Arboricultural Company Ltd (7 July 2020) as well as previous planning history for planning application 16/01262/FUL. The submitted report and tree protection measures drawing S93-J3-P2 Rev v1 appears to be a fair representation on the quality of trees on site and protection measures required during all phases of development. Technical implications have been fully considered and in my opinion the development has fully addressed BS 5837 guidance. Chapter 05.08 covers tree removal and proposed size and replacement planting.

I have no objection and if planning permission is permitted I recommend planning condition ST18.

Highways Officer: Rowley Lane is a ‘C’ class road which in this location is subject to a speed restriction of 30mph. Proposals include the redevelopment of site to provide 5 dwellings comprising of 4x2 bed and 1x3 bed units.

In terms of trip generation, having interrogated the TRICS® (Trip Rate Information Computer System) database, I would expect a dwelling in this location to generate in the region of 4-6 vehicular movements (two-way) per day. As this is the case, the development as a whole would have the potential to generate in the region of 20 – 30 vehicular movements (two- way) per day. The access arrangements serving the site will need to be assessed in order to demonstrate their suitability to accommodate the level of movements anticipated.

The existing vehicular access benefits from visibility splays in line with current Manual for Streets guidance, however this is subject to some vegetation clearance. The access point is to be widened to 4.8m, which I can confirm is acceptable and would allow for the simultaneous two-way flow of vehicles alongside pedestrians/cyclists in this location. With regard to refuse collection, Manual for Streets guidance states that residents should not be required to carry waste more than 30m to the storage point and waste collection vehicles should be able to get to within 25m of the storage point. Having reviewed the submitted plans, I note that no refuse collection area is demonstrated on the plan. This would mean that residents would have to carry waste bins in excess of 200m to the kerbside on collection days. Whilst this is far from ideal, as the access road will not be adopted by the Highway Authority, I am not in a position to justify this as a reason for refusal of this application.

Page 26 In terms of parking provision, I note that two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling. I trust that you will consider the level of parking provision on the site; however I can confirm that there is sufficient space within the site for this level of parking to be provided.

Mindful of the above, I have no objection to the proposals, subject to the following conditions being included on any planning consent that you may grant:

Condition 1: No other part of the development shall begin until existing new means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council’s guide note “Commercial Vehicular Access within Highway Limits” 2013.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

Condition 2: No other part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of the carriageway and a point 43 metres along the edge of the carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.

Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access.

Condition 3: The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

Informatives: The applicant is advised that the off-site works will need to be constructed under a Section 184 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This Small Works Agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. A minimum period of 3 weeks is required to process the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a written request. Please contact Development Management at the following address for information or apply online via Buckinghamshire County Council's website at www.buckscc.gov.uk/services/transport-and-roads/highways- developmentmanagement/apply-online/section-184-licence/ Highways Development Management 6th Floor, County Hall

Page 27 Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY Telephone 01296 382416

Waste Officer: Waste services note the proposal for 5 dwellings at “Land South of Rowley Lane.” The collection vehicle will reverse 25meters into the site, stop at the “Bin Collection Point” and proceed with the collections. There is a concern and risk that the each of the 5 householders will have to transport containers in excess of 30 metres to present their Waste & Recycling containers. Should the road become adopted by Highways we would amend and re-visit our comments. All collections to take places in accordance with council policies

Environmental Health: The historical maps indicate that the site has had an agricultural use, inferred by the presence of field boundaries on the map for the 1869-1888 epoch, the site appears to have remained undeveloped until the 1955-1974 epoch, several small buildings are shown on site during this period.

The current use of the site is described as livery/equestrian yard and storage uses. The site could have had a previous potentially contaminative use. The proposed development will result in a sensitive end use. An assessment of the risks associated with the site is therefore required.

Based on this, the following contaminated land condition is recommended on this and any subsequent applications for the site. The application requires the following condition(s):

1. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses • potential contaminants associated with those uses • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments. iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to

Page 28 demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

2. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together with any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall be implemented.

The above must be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

3. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination: In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 1.

Representations

Other Representations Objections have been received from 17 separate households relating to the proposed application and are summarised as below:

Page 29 Not sufficient space to widen driveway; Damage to neighbours hedge; Flooding; Impact on wildlife; Loss/damage to trees; Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties – Privacy/noise/smell; Poor access/highway danger; Damage to character of area; Set a precedent; Inadequate infrastructure/impact on local services; Poor design and layout – inappropriate for site and locality; Security risk; Urbanises site; Does not accommodate refuse vehicles.

Page 30 APPENDIX B: Site Location Plan

Do not scale – this map is indicative only Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright 2012. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Buckinghamshire Council, PSMA Licence Number 100023578

Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Buckinghamshire Council www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk

Report to South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee

Site Location: Land Adjacent To Limewood Gate, Poyle Lane, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, SL1 8LE,

Proposal: Outline application for development of a single detached dwelling with all matters reserved. ______

Application Number: PL/20/0671/OA

Applicant: Mrs Messum

Case Officer: Ian Severn

Ward affected: Burnham Church And Beeches

Parish Town Council: Burnham Parish Council

Valid date: 24 February 2020

Determination date:

Recommendation: Refuse permission

______

1.0 Summary & Recommendation/ Reason for Planning Committee Consideration 1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for a new dwelling within the curtilage of an existing residential property. All other matters are reserved.

1.2 An outline application for the same proposal was refused by delegated authority in October 2017 (Reference: 17/01382/OUT) on the grounds that it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site itself and the surrounding locality.

Page 33 1.3 Since the previous application was determined National Policy has been updated in the form of a revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the application has been submitted on the basis that it falls to be assessed under the new Policy and provides additional information not considered under the 2017 application. Having considered all the submitted information, it is considered that the previous reasons for refusal have not been overcome and the recommendation is to refuse planning permission.

1.4 The application has been called to Committee for determination by Councillor Kelly as he considers the application to meet the requirements of relevant Local and National Policies.

1.5 The recommendation for this application is Refusal.

2.0 Description of Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks Outline planning permission solely in relation to the principle of a new dwelling within the application site. The application is accompanied by plans showing the outline of a dwelling in the site, these should be considered as useful but indicative only.

2.2 The application is accompanied by: a) Planning Support & Design and Access Statement b) Appendices accompanying the Planning Support & Design and Access Statement, including: plan showing the site and its surroundings (appendix A), Density comparisons with nearby residential properties (appendix A); density comparisons with selected nearby residential properties; submitted plans, decision notice and officer’s report for refused application 17/01382/OUT (appendix B); examples of Appeal Decisions and a High Court Judgement each located outside of the South Bucks area (appendix C); Decision notice and plans for walls and gates at the application site (Reference 16/00417/CLOPED) (appendix D); information relating to the planning status of residential gardens and selected text from a High Court Judgement (appendix E); a letter from South Bucks District Council dated 01 February 2002 (appendix F); documents in relation to the 1977 approval of the existing dwelling and curtilage of Limewood Gate, Poyle Lane (appendix G); An assessment of the Council’s housing needs and provision undertaken for the applicant by one of the planning agents associated with this application (appendix H); applicant’s site photographs (appendix I); appendix J is cited as being an email from the police in relation to refused application 17/01382/OUT, this does not appear to have been attached as an appendix; letters from The Frost Partnership (dated 30 June 2017) and John Andrews Associates (dated 9 July 2017) stating knowledge of the site and a potential development proposal in the 1950’s-1970’s, documents relating to the 1977 approval of the existing dwelling and curtilage of Limewood Gate, Poyle

Page 34 Lane, a letter from A.C.Frost & Co (dated 15 July 1977) seeking advice on development of the site and an extended area following refusal of an application for additional dwellings (appendix K) c) Five further Appeal Statements submitted on 15 July 2020

3.0 Relevant Planning History 3.1 Relevant planning history for the site: 17/01382/OUT Outline Application for redevelopment of site to provide a detached dwelling. (Refused) 16/00417/CLOPED Application for certificate of lawfulness for proposed: Construction of boundary wall, entrance gates and piers. (Certificate granted) 15/02288/CLOPED Application for a certificate of Lawfulness for proposed: Construction of boundary wall and entrance gates. (Certificate granted)

4.0 Summary of Representations Public consultation responses Comments in relation to (determined and potential) applications on land immediately adjoining the application site are noted but not considered to be relevant in relation to this application. A rebuttal from one of the agents for the application has been received in relation to an objection letter, the contents of this are noted but not included in the summary below.

Objecting (18 properties represented in 19 representations) - Does not comply with Green Belt Policies / inappropriate development - Impact on wildlife - Loss of trees - Road unsuitable for construction traffic - Overdevelopment / ‘squeezed in’ / not in keeping with locality - Overlooking of neighbouring property - Impact on traffic / highway safety - Impact on environment - Would set precedent - Access and associated gates / walls / fences already built - Vegetation has previously been removed - Impact on drainage - Overbearing / over dominant when viewed from neighbouring property - Potential for neighbouring residents to contract virus’ from construction workers - Cumulative impact of this and recently approved development in Burnham on infrastructure - Impact on Burnham Beeches SSSI

Supporting (23 properties represented in 25 representations)

Page 35 - Similar to other ‘infill development’ in area - Would add character to street scene - Would make a suitable family home - Would make positive contribution to local economy - Will improve security of site and neighbouring properties - Development would be well screened by vegetation - Would help meet housing demand - Good use of vacant land - Would not impact wildlife - Would not impact highways - Would not impact vegetation - Would benefit from Burnham’s infrastructure - Conforms with Local Plan

Councillor Paul Kelly (Support) - Would make a positive contribution to the site - Would help meet housing demand - Would allow for a self build home providing a dwelling for a family to move back to the area

Councillor Lyn Hazell (Support) - Suitable ‘infill site’ - Supporting letters (including those from a former Senior Planning Officer for South Bucks known to the Councillor) demonstrate logical grounds for merits of application

5.0 Policy Considerations and Evaluation  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019.  Planning Practice Guidance  National Design Guidance, October 2019  South Bucks Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted February 2011  South Bucks District Local Plan - Adopted March 1999 Consolidated September 2007 and February 2011;  South Bucks District Local Plan Appendix 6 (Parking standards)  Draft Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2036.  South Bucks District Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - Adopted October 2008  Chiltern and South Bucks Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule  Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Mitigation Strategy, March 2020

Page 36

Principle and Location of Development  Core Strategy Policies: CP1 (Housing provision and delivery)

 Local Plan Saved Policies: GB1 (Green Belt boundaries and the control over development in the Green Belt)

5.1 The application site comprises a narrow strip of land which widens out to the rear and lies between Dunsinane and Limewood Gate. The land is separated from the adjoining residential properties and the planning history indicates that it has not historically been used in connection with Limewood Gate. This was confirmed in an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness (reference: 15/02288/CLOPED) submitted in 2015 which stated in the application form that ‘The land used to form part of the manor house, which was situated on land to the rear of the site. Since this time the site has been used for informal car parking.’ This application granted a certificate for walls and gates and these have since been erected and there is also some hardstanding installed leading a short distance away from the newly formed entrance to the vacant land.

5.2 The site fronts Poyle Lane which runs in a north westerly direction out of the built up settlement of Burnham and into the open Green Belt which surrounds the village. The site is located within the Green Belt with its south east boundary adjoining the boundary of the settlement.

5.3 In 2017 the site was subject to a planning application for the same scheme as currently proposed. The principle of a dwelling in this location was considered unacceptable on the grounds that it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is reflected in the first reason for refusal which states as follows:

“The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999). Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against development other than for a limited number of specified exceptions or in very special circumstances. The erection of a residential dwelling does not fall within any of these categories and as such, the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. As well as being unacceptable in principle, the proposed development, by virtue of the introduction of a building on this site, is not consistent with preserving the open and undeveloped character of the Green Belt, and would significantly detract from its open and undeveloped character. No very special circumstances exist in this case sufficient to warrant an exception to Green Belt policy. As such the proposal is contrary to policy GB1 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and section 9 (Protecting Green Belt Land) of the NPPF.”

Page 37 5.4 Since the previous application was determined National Policy has been updated in the form of a revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019). The application has been submitted on the basis that it falls to be assessed under the new Policy and the applicant has provided additional information not considered under the 2017 application.

5.5 The NPPF was published on the 27th March 2012 and updated in 2018 and 2019. Whilst this replaced the previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, it does not altogether replace the Development Plan. It does state however, that the weight that should be given to these existing local policies and plans will be dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Therefore, the closer the policies in the development plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them. In this instance it is considered that Local Plan Policy GB1 largely accords with the NPPF, but not fully. All other relevant local policies, as highlighted throughout this report, are in accordance with the NPPF. Where there is a difference or conflict in policy, then the NPPF takes precedence.

Green Belt Assessment

5.6 As noted, the application site is within the open Green Belt where, in accordance with Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Most development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt other than the exceptions within paragraphs 145 and 146 of the NPPF and Development Plan Policy GB1, which also sets out categories of development which are exceptions to inappropriate in the Green Belt similar to the NPPF. Para 145 (e) of the NPPF considers 'limited infilling in villages' as one of the exceptions where the construction of new buildings can be considered appropriate development in the Green Belt. It is noted that this point has also been highlighted within the submitted Planning Statement.

5.7 It is important to note that, there is no statutory or policy definition of 'infilling'; consequently, the word 'infilling' should be given its ordinary objective meaning in the same way as other words used in a planning context where there is no definition either in the Planning Acts or the NPPF (per Lang J in Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Others [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin) (15 November 2017), at [24]). The Collins English Dictionary says that 'infilling' means "the act of filling or closing gaps etc. in something, such as a row of buildings", and in the Cambridge Dictionary 'infilling' is defined as meaning "development of new homes, business buildings, etc. on land between other buildings in already developed areas".

5.8 Policy GB1 of the Local Plan similarly seeks to protect against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and like the Framework, allows limited infilling in existing villages. Policy GB3 sets out that such infilling should take place within

Page 38 the boundaries of the Green Belt Settlements as defined on the Proposals Map and is defined as "the filling of small gaps within the settlement and would normally involve development in a gap in a continuously built up frontage”. Policy GB3 also sets out that the proposal should not detract from the open undeveloped character of the Green Belt and should be compatible with and not adversely affect the character and amenities of nearby properties. The application site in not located within the Boundary of a Green Belt Settlement identified in Policy GB3 and the proposals map. As such the proposal does not meet with the requirements of Local Plan Policies GB1 and GB3. However, in relation to the exception to inappropriate development within the Green Belt, the implications of Court of Appeal decision into Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin) places a requirement on the decision maker to consider the physical boundaries to a village/settlement irrespective of boundaries shown in the local plan and found that the policy wording in the NPPF relating to limited infilling in villages required the decision maker to consider whether the physical characteristics of a site appears to be in a village.

5.9 In this regard it is necessary to consider whether the site falls within the extent of the village of Burnham. The village is structured around the railway and main Bath Road in the south, with a number of other, busy north-south routes. The village is largely surrounded by open countryside although it also partly borders the larger and more urban town of Slough to the south east. The focal point of the village comprises the historic High Street and this is largely surrounded by residential estates with a distinct change in character taking place between the residential estates and the countryside that surrounds them. This is reflected in the settlement of Burnham having been excluded from the Green Belt on the Adopted Proposals Map, with the settlement boundaries separating the built up area of the village from the more spacious and dispersed forms of development that surround it.

5.10 The application site is located outside the settlement boundary and forms the start of a more open area immediately adjacent to the built up area. The site fronts Poyle Lane which runs in a north westerly direction out of the built up settlement and out into the surrounding countryside. The part of the road that is within the built up area comprises a continuously built up frontage. However, the north west boundary of Dunsinane also forms the boundary with the Green Belt and once the road moves out into the Green Belt the built development on the road begins to peter out with development becoming sparser, less integrated and more openly spaced. When viewed in context it is clear that the development within the built up area contains dwellings in close proximity on relatively small plots. By direct comparison the dwelling of Limewood Gate and the other dwellings located in the Green Belt enjoy a comparatively significant level of spaciousness in terms of their plot sizes and, more importantly, in openness between built form. As such, there is a distinct difference between the built up area and the countryside that surrounds it. Taking this into account it is considered that in this instance the line which defines the boundary between

Page 39 the Green Belt and built up area can be considered to be a logical boundary to define the village of Burnham for the purposes of assessing the exception to inappropriate development set out set out in in Para 145 (e) of the NPPF. As such, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would be set between two residential plots and would infill a gap between the respective buildings at Limewood Gate and Dunsinane it is considered that the site would be located outside the village of Burnham and the proposal cannot be considered to constitute a form of limited infilling within a village.

5.11 It is noted that the applicant has provided appeal decisions to demonstrate that the boundary of a village as shown on the Council’s adopted proposal map should not necessarily be regarded as the village boundary. This point has been researched by the Case Officer for this report by reviewing the cases and it is agreed that the boundaries shown on Council’s Proposal Maps do not necessarily set a defined boundary to a village. Notwithstanding this, they do provide indication of a village boundary to be taken into consideration along with the context of the site’s surroundings. The assessment of each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits having regard to the specific context of the application site and this has been carried out in the above assessment.

5.12 In the case of Chobham referred to by the applicant the Inspector found that ‘The appeal site is outside of the defined village boundary, but is part of the continuous residential development that extends for a short distance beyond it.’ He stated that the application site is clearly within a built up area, with the ‘continuous residential development’ described by the Inspector extending for several houses. It is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development and would form a site which would be consistent with its immediate locality. Taking account of these factors it is understandable that the Inspector found that the Chobham case amounted to ‘limited infilling in a village’ and as such should be considered as an exception to inappropriate development under Paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

5.13 The applicant has also provided two examples of Appeal Decisions in close proximity to each other in Felbridge, again the Inspector notes that the pattern of surrounding development is a contributing factor with regards to whether the application site lies within the village and whether the proposal amounted to infilling. Each of these examples is similar to the Chobham case with the Inspector for one (Appeal ref: APP/M3645/W/16/3141780, paragraph 30) observing that ‘There is continuous development along this side of Copthorne Road and the appeal site backs onto other existing development rather than open countryside.’

5.14 The applicant also provides a High Court Judgement (C1/2014/1144) which again acknowledges that ‘It is common ground that that while a village boundary as defined in a Local Plan would be relevant consideration, it would not necessarily be determinative, particularly in circumstances where the boundary as defined

Page 40 did not accord with the inspector’s assessment of the extent of the village on the ground.’ (paragraph 12). The Judgement then includes paragraph 7 of the Inspectors report which provides a description of the application site and its surroundings. This reads: ‘The appeal site is located on the south side of Pear Tree Lane and comprises a plot of open land adjacent to the car park of a public house. It is surrounded on all sides by housing, and is bounded by conifer hedges and timber fencing. To the west and south is a continuously built up area, while to the east it adjoins a line of detached properties extending into the countryside. On the opposite side of the road is a row of similar bungalows (Ridgeway Bungalows) on deep plots behind which are open fields.’

5.15 It is considered important to note that each of the examples provided make reference to surrounding built form on all sides and continuation of development along the frontage of the application site in each direction. Taking these factors into account it is understandable that a conclusion was reached that they form part of a built up area included as part of a village and that they amount to infilling by definition. However, as is apparent from the assessment set out above, there are significant differences between all these cases referred to and the current application, particularly in terms of the amount of built form that surrounds the proposed development.

5.16 To conclude on the issue of limited infilling it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would be set between two residential plots. However, when compared to the examples given, clear contrasts are apparent as to whether the proposed application site should be considered as part of the ‘village’. Taking into account all of the information provided by the applicant and compared with the application case subject to this report it is considered that the application site falls outside of the village for the reasons given and so would not be subject to favourable determination by Paragraph 145 e) of the NPPF.

5.18 The applicant’s Planning Statement also provides that, in the event that the Council feels that the proposal should not be supported under Paragraph 145 e) of the NPPF then the applicant considers that Paragraph 145 g) supports the application and should lead to favourable determination. As noted above Paragraph 145 includes exceptions to inappropriate development and exception g) allows for the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

5.19 The applicant has provided a High Court Judgement identifying residential garden land as being ‘previously developed land’ for the purposes of the above paragraph and this is not disputed. The planning history for this site indicates that it is currently an independent plot and does not appear to form part of a

Page 41 garden. However, notwithstanding whether the plot of land should be regarded as previously developed land, the first part of the exception requires that the proposed development must ‘not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development’. The second part of the exception is not considered to apply as the proposal would not offer affordable housing.

5.20 In terms of the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, the application site comprises largely open land with a small amount of hardstanding and a wall and vehicular gates to the front. The proposal would introduce new development on the site in the form of a dwelling. The details relating to the dwelling have been reserved for subsequent approval. However, given the site currently has limited physical development the introduction of a new dwelling would inevitably result in a reduction in the level of openness of the Green Belt. A dwelling would also result in an intensification of the use of the site through increased vehicular movements and the introduction of domestic paraphernalia across the site. As such, it is considered that the proposal would result in a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would not therefore meet with the exception set out in Paragraph 145 g) of the NPPF.

5.21 Thus, overall, paragraphs 145(e) and 145(g) of the NPPF 2019 cannot be applied as an exception to the proposed development and therefore, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful by definition.

5.22 In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness it is also necessary to consider whether there is any other harm to the Green Belt. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. As set out above, the introduction of a new dwelling would result in a reduction in openness on the site and would therefore be in conflict with the fundamental aims of the Green Belt. Furthermore, by closing the gap between the built up area and the existing dwelling at Limewood Gate the proposal would also be in conflict with one of the purposes of the Green Belt by failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

5.23 To conclude the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The proposal would also result in further harm to the Green Belt by reason of loss of openness and being in conflict with one of its purposes. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by

Page 42 reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.24 The applicant does not agree that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development and has not therefore put forward a case of very special circumstances. However, in support of the application it is states that the proposal would allow a former Burnham resident to return to the area and that the proposal would provide additional security to a neighbouring property which has been subject to trespass. Whilst these are obviously desirable, no significant weight can be afforded to who would potentially occupy the property. With regards to security for the neighbouring property, it is considered that this can be afforded only minimal weight in consideration of this application, with other means to increase security available. As such it is not considered that very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm and the proposal is contrary to Section 13 of the NPPF and Policy GB1 of the Local Plan.

Transport matters and parking  Local Plan Saved Policies: TR5 (Access, highways work and traffic generation) TR7 (Traffic generation)

5.25 The means of access and parking provision would be subject to any reserved matters application. The Highways Authority have calculated that the proposal would result in an average of 4-6 two way vehicular movements per day. They consider that the existing road network can accommodate this and have stated requirements to be met in relation to access arrangements can be sought via reserved matters. It is also considered that the proposal could accommodate sufficient parking provision to meet the Council’s standards. No objections are therefore raised with regard to parking or highway impacts.

Raising the quality of place making and design  Core Strategy Policies: CP8 (Built and historic environment)  Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The Use, Design and Layout of Development) EP4 (Landscaping) H9 (Residential development and layout)

5.26 The previous was previously refused on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site itself and the surrounding locality. The reason for refusal stated as follows:

“The proposed development, by virtue of the narrow plot would appear 'squeezed in' between 'Limewood Gate' and 'Dunsinane' and would be at odds with the surrounding spacious residential layout. It would appear cramped and

Page 43 constitute an overdevelopment of the plot and would be incompatible with the character of the surrounding area. As such it is considered that the erection of a detached dwelling on this site would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site itself and the surrounding locality, contrary to saved Local Plan policies EP3 and H9 set out in the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and Core Policy 8 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011). “

The relevant National and Local Plan Policies have not fundamentally changed since the previous application was determined. The applicant has noted that the width of the plot is comparable to others on Poyle Lane. However, as noted above the site is outside the built up area of Burnham and forms part of the countryside that surrounds the village where development on the road begins to peter out with development becoming sparser, less integrated and more openly spaced. The proposal would result in a plot which would have a far narrower appearance than the other properties located in the countryside around this part of Burnham. The built form of the proposed dwelling shown would also take up almost the full width of the plot where it is located and would reduce the characteristic openness by sitting in relatively close proximity to neighbours on either side. Taking this into account it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding locality and is contrary to saved Local Plan policies EP3 and H9 and Core Policy 8.

Amenity of existing and future residents  Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The use, design and layout of development) EP5 (Sunlight and daylight)

5.27 As assessed by the Officer in relation to the previous outline permission “It is difficult to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring properties given that no detailed drawings have been supplied and that the proposal is an outline application. However, it is considered that the dwelling could be designed such that it would not have an adverse impact on the light, outlook and privacy enjoyed by the neighbouring properties.”

5.28 The application site widens to the rear of where the proposed dwelling would likely be located, this area would afford sufficient private amenity space for future occupiers.

Infrastructure and Developer Contributions  Core Strategy Policies: CP6 (Local infrastructure needs) CP9 (Natural environment)

5.29 The site is located within 5.6km of Burnham Beeches. Recreation within Burnham Beeches has resulted in an adverse impact on the health of the site.

Page 44 Impacts include trampling, soil compaction, climbing damage to trees, dog fouling, the spread of disease and an import of non-native species.

5.30 Natural England have advised that due to new evidence coming to light as part of the evidence base for the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan, it is recognised that new housing within 5.6km of the internationally designated Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) can be expected to result in an increase in recreation pressure. They advise that the 5.6km zone represents the core area around the SAC where increases in the number of residential properties will require Habitats Regulations Assessment.

5.31 In light of the new evidence relating to the recreation impact zone of influence, Natural England advise that planning authorities must apply the requirements of Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to housing development within 5.6km of the SAC boundary. The authority must decide whether a particular proposal, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC.

5.32 Development in accordance with the new evidence would not be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC because it will provide, or make an appropriate contribution to, acceptable avoidance and mitigation measures. The planning authority can grant planning permission to such developments in accordance with the Regulations.

5.33 The mitigation would be in the form of a financial contribution towards the Burnham Beeches Access Management Scheme, or any subsequent scheme which replaces it, and this would be secured by way of a legal agreement.

5.34 However, development proposals which are not in accordance with the new evidence would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

5.35 In this instance, an HRA undertaken by the Council concludes that the proposed development is likely to lead to significant effects on the SAC as a result of increasing recreational pressure, and that mitigation is required to address it. An Appropriate Assessment undertaken by the Councils for this application concludes that the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) which has been agreed with Natural England is robust and capable of mitigating the likely significant effects of the proposal provided the proposal pays a contribution towards the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy and legal fees to the Council. A copy of the Appropriate Assessment can be found attached to the end of this report.

5.36 Provided a legal agreement is completed which secures this financial contribution, Natural England are satisfied with the development and do not raise an objection on grounds relating to its impact on Burnham Beeches.

Page 45

5.37 The applicant has been advised of the above and asked to complete and return the Unilateral Undertaking provided to them as a sign of intent to comply with the requirement. The Council has not received a completed Unilateral undertaking and must therefore add the impact on the SSSI as a reason for refusal.

5.38 The application would also be subject to the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme, for which a further fee would be applicable.

Other Matters  Core Strategy Policies: CP12 (Sustainable energy)  Local Plan Saved Policies: L10 (Proposals involving felling or other works affecting trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order)

5.39 The Councils Tree Officer and Waste team have been consulted and have no objection to the principle of a dwelling.

6.0 Weighing and balancing of issues / Overall Assessment 6.1 It is acknowledged that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is also acknowledged that The Framework, at paragraph 11 is clear that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. However, land designated as Green Belt, as well as Designated Heritage Assets, and SSSI/SAC sites are included within the list of policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance and which provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development.

6.2 The proposal would be inappropriate development, and this harm, together with the other harm identified within this report, would not be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Thus, the Framework, as a material consideration, does provide a clear reason for refusing the development. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as envisaged by paragraph 11, does not apply in this case.

6.3 For the reasons presented in this Statement, Officers consider that the proposed development would conflict with National and Local Policy and should therefore be refused.

7.0 Working with the applicant / agent 7.1 In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF (2019) the Council approach decision-taking in a positive and creative way taking a proactive approach to

Page 46 development proposals focused on solutions and work proactively with applicants to secure developments.

7.2 The Council work with the applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application. 7.3 In this instance -  The applicant was informed/ advised how the proposal did not accord with the development plan, that no material considerations are apparent to outweigh these matters and provided the opportunity to amend the application or provide further justification in support of it.  The applicant/agent was informed of the reason for refusal in relation to the SSSI and how they could be overcome but a completed Unilateral Undertaking has not been received.

Recommendation: Refuse permission For the following reasons:-

1 The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein most new development is considered to be inappropriate and there is a general presumption against such development. Development which is not inappropriate is set out in Local Plan Policy GB1 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed development would not fall under any of the exceptions to inappropriate development within the above guidance and policy. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the proposed building would result in an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would be contrary to one of its purposes by failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. No very special circumstances exist that are sufficient to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by the reason of inappropriateness and other harm identified. As such, the proposal is contrary to Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy GB1 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).}

2 The proposed development, by virtue of the narrow plot would appear 'squeezed in' between 'Limewood Gate' and 'Dunsinane' and would be at odds with the surrounding spacious residential layout within its countryside setting. As such it is considered that the erection of a detached dwelling on this site would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site itself and the surrounding locality, contrary to saved Local Plan policies EP3 and H9 set out in the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and Core Policy 8 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011).

Page 47 3 The occupants of the proposal would add to the recreational disturbance of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation as the proposal would not contribute satisfactorily to mitigate its impacts in this respect. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable strategic access management and monitoring, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) and Section 15 of the NPPF.

Appendix A: Consultation Responses and Representations

Appendix B: Site Location plan

Appendix C: Burnham Beeches SSSI Appropriate Assessment

Page 48 APPENDIX A: Consultation Responses and Representations

Waste Management "Waste notes the proposal for a new dwelling. We have no objections, resident to present their waste & recycling containers at the property boundary adjacent to Poyle Lane. All collections to take place in accordance with council policies."

Highways "I note the Highway Authority has previously provided comments for this site under application number 17/01382/OUT (detached dwelling) which, in a response dated the 27th September 2017; the Highway Authority had no objection.

Due to the similarity with the aforementioned previous application, I consider this application does not make a difference in highway terms. As such, I would like to reiterate comments made within that application which I have repeated below for clarity:

"Poyle Lane is an unclassified road subject to a speed limit of 30mph. The applicant seeks planning permission to erect a detached dwellinghouse on land adjacent to Limewood Gate. It is my understanding that this is an outline application with all matters reserved and as such I will comment upon the principle of development only. I will however, set out what will need to be submitted as part of a reserved matters application.

In terms of trip generation, I would expect a dwelling in this location to generate between 4- 6 daily vehicular movements, two-way. I am confident that these additional vehicular movements can be accommodated within the local highway network. It will need to be demonstrated as part of a reserved matters application that adequate visibility can be achieved from the proposed access. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m are required in both directions from the proposed access commensurate with a speed limit of 30mph. These visibility splays will need to be achieved within the publicly maintained highway or within land under the control of the applicant."

Mindful of the above, the Highway Authority would have no objection to the proposed development subject to (one specified) condition being included on any planning consent you may grant"

Tree Officer "I have not visited property because of current travel restrictions in regards to coronavirus. I have previously comment on this site for planning application 17/01382/OUT in August 2017 and for your convenience I have included these comments below: The site is subject to an Area designated Tree Preservation Order no.3, 1963 which only covers trees growing at the time when the Order was made. The submitted DAS paragraph 5.13 & 5.14 mentions the screening benefits of trees on either side of existing access/site and they are being retained. I do not consider there are any significant (self-set sycamores and cypresses) trees that should constrain development until you get to the rear of the site next to adjoining woodland. If planning permission is granted I recommend the following conditions to ensure retained trees are adequately protected with new planting. NT01 NT02 NT14 I have reviewed the submitted photographs and no tree information has been submitted to help

Page 49 support application. If planning permission is permitted I suggest the following planning conditions: ST4 ST12"

Natural England “Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Due to new evidence coming to light as part of the evidence base for the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan, Natural England recognises that new housing within 5.6km of the internationally designated Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) can be expected to result in an increase in recreation pressure.

The 5.6km zone proposed within Policy DM NP3 of the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan represents the core area around the SAC where increases in the number of residential properties will require Habitats Regulations Assessment. Mitigation measures will be necessary to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC from the cumulative impacts of development.

NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE OBJECTION - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED SITES - DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 5.6 KILOMETRES OF BURNHAM BEECHES SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION (SAC)

WITHIN 5.6 KILOMETRES

Natural England requires further information in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation.

Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

Page 50  Trampling/wear (e.g. loss of vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, damage to trees from climbing);  Harvesting (e.g. fungi, wood);  Difficulties in managing the site (e.g. maintaining the grazing regime);  Disturbance (e.g. affecting the distribution of livestock and deer).

Development in accordance with the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan’s DM NP3 Policy and emerging Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy would not be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC because they will provide, or make an appropriate contribution to, acceptable avoidance and mitigation measures. The planning authority can grant planning permission to such developments in accordance with the Regulations.

Consequently, it is Natural England’s view that the planning authority will not be able to ascertain that this proposed development as it is currently submitted would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. In combination with other plans and projects, the development would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of the habitat by reason of increased access to the site including access for general recreation and dog- walking. There being alternative solutions to the proposal and there being no imperative reasons of overriding public interest to allow the proposal, despite a negative assessment, the proposal will not pass the tests of Regulation 62.”

Councillor Paul Kelly (Support) “Thank you for your email. I do not have any pecuniary interest in this matter. I thought that the previous 2017 refusal was wrong and all that I have seen in the present application which has had more detailed and clearer supporting material has reconfirmed that view.

I have read closely the case statement put in with the application by JSB Planning Law and can see no weaknesses in it at all, so if you ask what my planning reasons are for requesting the matter to go to committee then my answer is that I endorse that planning case unreservedly. It seems to me that the most important part of it is that NPPF paragraph 145 (e) applies, which states that infill in villages is not harmful to the Green Belt. I am clear as the Burnham Parish Council evidently are that both the plot and Limewood Gate beyond it

Page 51 have to be viewed as being in the village as they are part of the built up frontage on Poyle Lane, where all of the other properties are clearly within the village. I have not pored over all of the cases about what being in a village does and does not mean but unless you can claim that JSB is misrepresenting them then they show that the plot is in the village and 145 (e) applies. Also, if there were any real harm to the Green Belt then Parish Council would have objected and they did not.

Please also give me clear cut answers to the following questions:

You use the word 'concerns' about whether there will be harm to the Green Belt. If you can show that there will actually be harm then please spell out why that would arise and how great it would be, bearing in mind that the plot is only into the Green Belt boundary by width and has houses to both sides of it .

Why do you claim that the plot would be too narrow when it is as wide as Grass Croft, next door but one, beyond Dunsinaine, and is wider than other properties in the locality, including Redwood ones behind it, e.g. no 3. Are you claiming that these properties are 'cramped and squashed in', in which case why did the Council give permission for them? I also note the Density comparison by Front Architects showing that the plot is well over twice as large as the Grasscroft Plot and that the house illustrated on it would result in a density of less than half of Grasscroft.

The Green Belt boundary runs along the boundary of the plot and Dunsinaine, as does the boundary drawn a long time ago for the village. Are you also saying that if the plot were on the other side of Dunsinaine you could sustain a refusal of an outline application of it on the basis that whatever house could be designed for it, that could not be other than 'cramped and squashed in'? That claim seems to be completely absurd based on all of the measurements.

Also, I am struggling to understand how you can claim that an as yet un-designed detached house on the plot, but necessarily having space between its side walls and the side walls of both Dunsinaine and Limewood Gate, could fairly be said to be 'cramped and squashed in' when Dunsinaine's garage is on the boundary with the plot and it is semi-detached with Grasscroft. Furthermore, there are other similar close spacings and linkages along Poyle Lane. Also, Dunsinaine is on a smaller plot than the application plot and again, going by the Front table, has a site coverage of some 70% more than the application plot would, have based on the illustrative footprint.

I have checked with the applicant's father, my constituent, about what she has to say about the Burnham Beeches SSSI. As you know, all that is needed is that applicants have to pay a contribution to cover any impact that their development may have. I am assured that the applicant is willing to do so and she confirms that her agents and JSB have never suggested otherwise. The only debate has been about the timing of this payment, but I understand that she is willing to pay it on the grant of outline permission. Officers have control of this because they would not grant permission under delegated powers without the Council having received the payment. I am very concerned, as I am with the alleged narrowness argument, that this is another example of officers artificially adding dubious grounds of

Page 52 refusal to shore up a decision that they want to make for one particular reason, in this case your interpretation of Green Belt Policy which seems to me to run counter to all of the evidence and logic.

I do indeed reiterate my wish for the matter to be called in to the Committee and I shall reserve my right to add to what I have said when I have seen your replies to my questions above and seen your report. Please provide the replies as soon as possible and inform me when you will be sending me the report.

Thank you.”

Councillor Lyn Hazell (Support) “I have seen the Outline Application online and have noted the relevant plans and documentation supporting the submitted above Application.

I know the subject site well and note that it is the last piece of land along the stretch of Poyle Lane, from Dropmore Road to Limewood Gate, and Poyle Farm beyond, (on the opposite side of the lane). It is sandwiched between two existing properties and is plenty large enough to be considered as being a suitable “infill site”.

I have also read the many other supporting letters which clearly demonstrate several logical grounds to describe the merits of the application, especially those views expressed by an ex Senior Planning Officer of South Bucks Council, Mr John Andrews, whom I have come across during my earlier involvement with the Council.

I fully support this application.”

Parish Council The Committee RESOLVED to state they had NO OBJECTIONS.

Public consultation responses Comments in relation to (determined and potential) applications on land immediately adjoining the application site are noted but not considered to be relevant in relation to this application. A rebuttal from one of the agents for the application has been received in relation to an objection letter, the contents of this are noted but not included in the summary below.

Objecting (18 properties represented in 19 representations) Does not comply with Green Belt Policies / inappropriate development Impact on wildlife Loss of trees Road unsuitable for construction traffic Overdevelopment / 'squeezed in' / not in keeping with locality Overlooking of neighbouring property Impact on traffic / highway safety Impact on environment

Page 53 Would set precedent Access and associated gates / walls / fences already built Vegetation has previously been removed Impact on drainage Overbearing / over dominant when viewed from neighbouring property Potential for neighbouring residents to contract virus' from construction workers Cumulative impact of this and recently approved development in Burnham on infrastructure Impact on Burnham Beeches SSSI

Supporting (23 properties represented in 25 representations) Similar to other 'infill development' in area Would add character to street scene Would make a suitable family home Would make positive contribution to local economy Will improve security of site and neighbouring properties Development would be well screened by vegetation Would help meet housing demand Good use of vacant land Would not impact wildlife Would not impact highways Would not impact vegetation Would benefit from Burnham's infrastructure Conforms with Local Plan

Page 54 APPENDIX B: Site Location Plan

Page 55 Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Buckinghamshire Council, PSMA Licence Number 100023578

Page 56 Appendix C: Burnham Beeches SSSI Appropriate Assessment

Appropriate Assessment Application Ref. PL/20/0671/OA Proposal: Outline application for development of a single detached dwelling with all matters reserved.

Summary Buckinghamshire Council, as Local Planning Authority, has carried out a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for net new homes in proximity to the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (BB SAC)i. The HRA screened in recreational disturbance from net new homes as having a likely significant effect on the integrity of the conservation purposes of the BB SAC. The HRA sets out what development is likely to have significant effects on the integrity of the conservation objectives of the BB SAC. It concluded that any net new homes within 500 metres of the boundary BB SAC should be avoided. It also concluded that any net new homes between 500 metres and 5.6 kilometres of the BB SAC need to be mitigated. The conclusions of this HRA can help inform the individual Appropriate Assessments of Planning Applications and Permitted Development. Informing individual Appropriate Assessment of Planning Applications and Permitted Development Evidence from the Council’s Consultants Footprint Ecologyii has concluded that likely significant effects on the integrity of the BB SAC from recreational disturbance would derive from a net increase in new homes within a linear distance of 5.6 kilometres from the boundary of the BB SAC. The disturbance is from additional human and dog presence. Using this evidence, Buckinghamshire Council’s HRA determined that the likely significant effects within a 500 metre linear distance of the BB SAC boundary zone were so likely to harm the integrity of the conservation purposes of the BB SAC that net new homes should be avoided as it would not be possible to mitigate the impacts from the recreational disturbance. It also determined that net new homes within a linear distance between 500 metres and 5.6 kilometres of the BB SAC’s boundary would need to be mitigated. The HRA concluded that Planning Applications and Permitted Development, which provide for a net increase in new homes within the 500 metres to 5.6 kilometres zone would have a significant likely effect on the conservation features of the BB SAC and that such applications and permitted development can only be permitted if the applicant enters into a legal agreement with Buckinghamshire Council, as Local Planning Authority, to pay towards Buckinghamshire Council’s Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy. Natural England (NE), the Government’s conservation advisor, agreed with the findings in the HRA. Appropriate Assessment of Planning Application reference number PL/20/0671/OA 1. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) In accordance with Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), a competent authority (in this case Buckinghamshire Council), before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which— a. is likely to have a significant effect on a European site…(either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

Page 57 b. is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. A person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as Buckinghamshire Council may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable it to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required. Buckinghamshire Council must, for the purposes of the assessment, consult the Conservation Body, NE, and have regard to any representations made by that body. It must also, if it considers it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public, and if it does so, it must take such steps for that purpose as it considers appropriate. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to Regulation 64 (Considerations of overriding public interest), Buckinghamshire Council may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site. In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, Buckinghamshire Council must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which it proposes that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.

2. Stages 1-3 Screening for Likely Significant Effects Buckinghamshire Council accepts that this proposal is a ‘plan or project’ which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (BB SAC). The potential likely significant effects on the integrity of the BB SAC is from recreational disturbance. A net increase in homes is likely to result in additional visits to the BB SAC with consequential erosion and pollution within the BB SAC. At this stage Buckinghamshire Council cannot rule out the likely significance effects on the BB SAC (alone or in combination with other plans or projects) because the proposal could undermine the Conservation Objectives of the SAC. This is because the proposal lies between 500 metres and 5.6 kilometres of the boundary of the BB SAC and represents a net increase in homes within this zone which will lead to an increase in local population and a likely increase in recreational disturbance within the SAC. As the likely significance effect cannot be ruled out at this stage an Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken.

3. Stage 4 Appropriate Assessment 500 metres or more to 5.6 kilometres Based on the information proposed by the applicant, Buckinghamshire Council must decide whether or not an adverse effect on site integrity (alone or in combination with other plans or projects) can be ruled out. Mitigation may be able to be provided so that the proposal can reduce adverse effects. The Council considers that the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) which has been agreed with Natural England is robust and capable of mitigating the likely significant effects of the proposal over 500 metres and up to 5.6 kilometres provided the proposal pays a contribution towards the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy and legal fees to the Council. The SAMMS is attached as Appendix 1. a. Fees and Mitigation For this proposal the following apply:

Page 58  Buckinghamshire Council List of Fees and Charges (Fees)  Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) If paid, the project as proposed would not adversely affect the integrity of the BB SAC. Legal Fees To cover Buckinghamshire Council’s reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred in connection with the Unilateral Undertaking and the Council’s Monitoring Fee. The monitoring fee is £541.02 and the legal costs will be determined on a case by case basis.

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy Contribution The development will be required to make a contribution towards the SAMMS. SAMMS includes projects for visitor access management, monitoring and education measures on the BB SAC to mitigate the effects of new development on it. A contribution to the SAMMS of £2,023.87 is required for this development of one dwelling.

4. Conclusion An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out for this development in accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2017. Without mitigation measures the Appropriate Assessment concludes that the development is likely to have a significant effect upon the integrity of the SAC with the result that the Council would be required to refuse this planning application. Buckinghamshire Council considers, following consultation with NE, that the above measures will prevent a likely adverse effect on the integrity of the BB SAC. Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), and permission may be granted subject to any other planning considerations. Conclusion Provided that the applicant has entered in to a Unilateral Undertaking to secure legal and SAMMS fees the planning application will be in accordance with the SAC mitigation requirements. If the applicant does not agree with the above mitigation and enter into a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the mitigation, then the application must be refused using the following reason for refusal.

5. Reasons for Refusal The occupants of the proposal would add to the recreational disturbance of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation as the proposal would not contribute satisfactorily to mitigate its impacts in this respect. In the absence of a legal obligation to secure suitable strategic access management and monitoring, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal would be contrary to the findings of the appropriate assessment.

i https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/article/10331/Chiltern-and-South-Bucks-Local-Plan-Submission-Documents ii https://www.chiltern.gov.uk/article/10331/Chiltern-and-South-Bucks-Local-Plan-Submission-Documents

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Buckinghamshire Council www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk

Report to South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee

Site Location: 18 Station Parade, Denham Green, Buckinghamshire, UB9 5ET,

Proposal: Change of use to an interchangeable use as Thai massage (a Sui Generis use) and/or uses within Class A1 (shops) ______

Application Number: PL/20/2186/FA

Applicant: Mrs Sukanya Ng

Case Officer: Ian Severn

Ward affected: Denham

Parish Town Council: Denham Parish Council

Valid date: 10 July 2020

Determination date:

Recommendation: Conditional Permission

______

1.0 Summary & Recommendation/ Reason for Planning Committee Consideration 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a change of use from a general store / hardware store (A1 Use) to an interchangeable use allowing for any A1 use including the existing, or the Sui Generis use for a Thai massage and wellbeing clinic. An interchangeable use as Thai Massage and/or a use within Class A1 is being sought to provide some flexibility for any future occupant. It is understood that the applicant 'Nuad Thai' already runs a chain of successful massage and well-being clinics throughout London and the South Bucks areas.

1.2 The application has been called to Committee for determination by Councillor Hollis as he considers the application will negatively impact upon other

Page 61 businesses in the parade of shops and members of the public seeking to use the other shops particularly in relation to parking.

1.3 The recommendation for this application is to grant Conditional permission.

2.0 Description of Proposed Development 2.1 The application site forms part of the parade of shops on Station Parade, Denham Green. The building is characterised by a shop front fronting Station Parade at ground floor level. The current use of the building is as a general store / hardware store. The existing business has been established in the unit since before 10th March 2013.

2.2 The application seeks planning permission for a change of use from A1 use to A1 / Sui Generis (Thai massage and wellbeing clinic). The flexible use allows for use for shops in the current use class or a use as a Thai massage and wellbeing clinic containing 6 treatment rooms (one with shower facility), a reception area, a shower and toilet room and a pantry and rest area for staff. The business would employ 2 full time staff and 4 part time staff.

2.3 The application site has recently been subject to two prior-notification applications to change the rearmost part of the shop and the detached garage associated with the shop into residential units. These were determined as being prior-approval not required. Notwithstanding this, they could not be implemented in addition to the proposed change of use as they would share the same space as the Thai massage clinic and the residential use would need to be implemented from an existing sole A1 use rather than the proposed interchangeable / shared use.

2.4 The application is accompanied by: a) Design and Access Statement

3.0 Relevant Planning History 3.1 Relevant planning history for the site: PL/20/2288/PNR: Prior notification under Class M of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 - Change of use of rear part of shop (A1) and associated garage to two dwellings (Use Class C3) (Prior approval not required)

PL/20/2220/PNR: Prior notification under Class M of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 - Change of rear use of part of shop (A1) to one dwelling (Use Class C3) (Prior approval not required)

PL/20/2186/FA: Change of use to an interchangeable use as Thai massage (a Sui Generis use) and/or uses within Class A1 (shops) (Under consideration)

Page 62 11/00992/ADV: One externally illuminated fascia sign and one externally illuminated projecting sign. (Consent granted)

11/00939/FUL: New shopfront and shutters. (Permission granted)

4.0 Summary of Representations Planning Policy Summarised as no objection.

Highways Summarised as no objection.

Parish Council “The Parish Council Strongly Objects. The change of use to Hospitality as opposed to Retail in that area is a major concern. There are already issues with parking in that area and given the nature of this proposed business the 'stay time' will be longer than passing trade using the retail businesses whom the local community and those passing through the area greatly values.”

Public consultation responses Objecting (3 representations) - Insufficient parking - Insufficient showering facilities - Will attract people from outside of locality - Not Covid-19 compliant - Community needs A1 retail units - Impact on use of outdoor neighbour residential amenity space

5.0 Policy Considerations and Evaluation  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019.  Planning Practice Guidance  National Design Guidance, October 2019  South Bucks Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted February 2011  South Bucks District Local Plan - Adopted March 1999 Consolidated September 2007 and February 2011;  South Bucks District Local Plan Appendix 6 (Parking standards)  Draft Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2036.  Chiltern and South Bucks Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule

Principle and Location of Development  Core Strategy Policies: CP7 (Accessibility and Transport) CP11 (Healthy and Viable Town and Village Centres)  Local Plan Saved Policies: S3 (Neighbourhood Shopping Areas)

Page 63

5.1 The proposal relates to a shop located towards the centre of a parade of shops in Denham Green. The parade currently has a varied mix of units contributing towards its vitality, these include convenience stores, food outlets, professional services and local specialist’s shops such as a butcher.

5.2 The Council’s proposals map shows the parade to be considered as a Neighbourhood Shopping Area for the purposes of Local Policy, as such, amongst relevant policies, the proposal falls to be assessed under Policy S3 which seeks to ensure that new facilities positively contribute to the vitality and viability of neighbourhood shopping areas. Traffic generation also forms a principle consideration.

5.3 The existing shop is a hardware store constituting an A1 use under current policy consideration. The proposal seeks a unique use of Sui Generis for the purpose of a Thai Massage and Wellbeing Clinic, but with an interchangeable A1 use allowing it to revert back to an A1 use should there be insufficient demand for the service.

5.4 Local Plan policy S3 seeks to preserve a sufficient level of A1 retail units within Neighbourhood Shopping Areas whilst also seeking to provide vitality and viability through variety and businesses which complement the use of other units in the parade. To this end it is considered that the change of use to a Thai Massage Clinic would present the opportunity to attract people to the parade that may otherwise not use it, whilst the uniqueness of the proposal means that visitors are likely to also use other shops in the parade ancillary to the primary intent of their visit. It is therefore considered that the proposal would contribute to the vitality and viability of the parade.

5.5 The proposed change of use would result in the loss of an A1 unit, however it is considered that overall a sufficient level of A1 units in the form of convenience stores and several other A1 units would be retained. The option to revert back to A1 from the specific Sui Generis use is also a positive contributory factor. As such no objections are raised with regard to Policy S3.

Transport matters and parking  Core Strategy Policies: P7 (Accessibility and Transport)  Local Plan Saved Policies: TR5 (Access, highways work and traffic generation) TR7 (Traffic generation)

5.6 Concern has been raised that the proposal would result in parking difficulties for other users of the Neighbourhood Shopping Area. The Council’s parking standards do not include specific standards for the proposed use. Appendix 9 of the Local Plan states that where a type of development is proposed which is not included in the standards the parking requirement will be assessed by taking

Page 64 into account the information submitted with the application, site and locality characteristics and experience with similar development. The Neighbourhood Shopping Area is considered to be in a highly sustainable location, with nearby rail and train links. Additionally, parking for the parade is time limited to ensure sufficient turnover of visitors and parking restrictions are in place on nearby roads. Three specific parking spaces for use by the shop to the rear of the parade are retained and the applicant has advised that their experience with their chain of Thai Massage Clinics indicates that the busiest time is likely to be during the late afternoon / early evening when many of the other units in the parade will be at their quietest or closed.

5.7 The Council’s Highway Team have also noted that due to the nature of the site, the premises would expect to see a high turnover in the number of spaces required within a day given the site would operate on an appointment only basis. The Highway Team also note that at the busiest time of operation, the use would receive approximately 5 customers per hour. Due to the capacity of the site this number of customers per hour is also likely for the existing use of the site as a shop and it is considered that the proposal would not therefore result in a worsening of the parking situation to the extent that an objection could be sustained. The Council’s Highways team also consider the proposal to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the highway network and highway safety. No objections are therefore raised with regard to parking and highways.

Amenity of existing and future residents  Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The Use, Design and Layout of Development)

5.8 The proposal would not result in any additional built form and is not expected to create any amenity harm in relation to noise, smell or other nuisance considerations. Although concern has been raised that the proposal would impact the use of the rear outdoor areas of neighbouring properties it is not anticipated that this would be the case as customers would enter and exit through the main entrance on the front of the shopping parade as existing.

5.9 For the reasons presented in this Statement, Officers consider that the proposed development would comply with National and Local Policy and should therefore be approved.

6.0 Weighing and balancing of issues / Overall Assessment 6.1 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,

Page 65 b. Any local finance considerations, so far as they are material to the application (such as CIL if applicable), and, c. Any other material considerations

6.2 The NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and for decision making, setting out approving development proposals that accord with up to date development plans without delay.

6.3 Section 2, paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three overarching objectives, these are set out as Economic, Social and Environmental objectives. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would align with the aims of sustainable development in line with section 2 of the NPPF. The proposal would fulfil economic objectives in terms of supporting growth. The proposal would result in the creation of jobs through greater employment from the proposed use. A social objective would also be met as the proposal would contribute to the vitality and viability of the shopping parade.

6.4 The proposed development would therefore accord with both National and Local Plan Policies and is subsequently recommended for conditional permission.

6.5 Local Planning Authorities, when making decisions of a strategic nature, must have due regard, through the Equalities Act, to reducing the inequalities which may result from socio-economic disadvantage. In this instance, it is not considered that this proposal would disadvantage any sector of society to a harmful extent.

6.6 It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned in the event of planning permission being granted in this instance.

7.3 In this instance - The application as submitted was considered to be acceptable and the applicant was kept advised of the need for the proposal to go before the Planning Committee.

Page 66 Recommendation: Conditional Permission Subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. (SS01)

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any statutory amendment or re-enactment thereof).

2. The Thai Massage business hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 09:00 and 21.00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 and 21:00 on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To accord with the submitted application and to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential properties. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

3. The development to which this planning permission relates shall be undertaken solely in accordance with the following drawings:

List of approved plans:

Received Plan Reference 10 Jul 2020 Sheet # 1 / 2 10 Jul 2020 Sheet # 2 / 2

INFORMATIVE(S)

1. The Council is the Charging Authority for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL is a charge on development; it is tariff-based and enables local authorities to raise funds to pay for infrastructure.

If you have received a CIL Liability Notice, this Notice will set out the further requirements that need to be complied with.

If you have not received a CIL Liability Notice, the development may still be liable for CIL. Before development is commenced, for further information please refer to the following website https://www.southbucks.gov.uk/CIL-implementation or contact 01494 732792 for more information. 2. Due to the close proximity of the site to existing residential properties, the applicants' attention is drawn to the Considerate Constructors Scheme initiative. This initiative encourages contractors and construction companies to adopt a considerate

Page 67 and respectful approach to construction works, so that neighbours are not unduly affected by noise, smells, operational hours, vehicles parking at the site or making deliveries, and general disruption caused by the works.

Page 68 APPENDIX A: Consultation Responses and Representations

Councillor Comments – Councillor Guy Hollis Material planning consideration: ' Impact on community and other services'. ( Design and access statement flawed/no parking assessment. 3 spaces not enough and staff/clients' vehicles will overwhelm stretched public parking at the parade with long stay parkers using up limited spaces therein rather than peripatetic shoppers thus preventing other businesses' users from access to their shops to the detriment of these other services. Restaurants only do significant trade in the evenings so no precedent set by them etc etc)

Parish/Town Council Comments The Parish Council Strongly Objects. The change of use to Hospitality as opposed to Retail in that area is a major concern. There are already issues with parking in that area and given the nature of this proposed business the 'stay time' will be longer than passing trade using the retail businesses whom the local community and those passing through the area greatly values.

Consultation Responses

Planning Policy: Development Plan The Development Plan comprises the Core Strategy adopted February 2011 and the South Bucks District Local Plan adopted 1999 in which policies have been saved. Both plans are proposed to be replaced by a new local plan (covering the former Chiltern and South Bucks Districts) to cover the period up to 2036. Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste local plan also forms part of the Development plan but is not relevant to this proposal.

Core Policy 11 of the Core Strategy - states that Proposals for new retail, office and other main town centre uses should enhance the vitality and viability of centres

Policy S3 - NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPPING AREAS of the adopted Local Plan defines Denham Green shops as a neighbourhood centre. Within such centres the change of use from retail to another use will only be permitted where it enhances the function of the retail centre and where it doesn’t lead to a dominant part of the frontage being in non-retail use. The written justification does state that consideration will be given to retail units which have been vacant for a long time and or advertised for a retail use and have had no interest.

Parking standards are set out in the local plan – Other planning policy Material Planning considerations

NPPF para 2 states applications should be determined in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and that the NPPF itself is a material consideration.

Page 69 Para 85 – planning decisions should support the role that town centres play in the heart of local communities and take a positive approach to their growth management and adaptation.

Use Classes order – recent changes to the Use Classes order have combined many Town centre type uses into Class E. However, the old Class A2 did allow for other professional services and or other services appropriate to a shopping centre serving visiting members of the public and or Class D1. (a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practioner, As such it is considered that the proposed massage parlour use may be considered as such a use and not Sui generis as requested by the applicant.

Summary

The existing shop unit appears to be in an A1 use.as such if the proposed use requires planning permission the Local Plan policies would apply. In which case an assessment of the proportion on non-A1 to A1 uses in the frontage would need to be undertaken and or some evidence of marketing the unit for A1 use without any interest and a consideration if the proposed use would attract people to the shopping area. Given the changes to the Use classes order it is assumed any planning permission granted would allocate the unit to a Class E use and as such the potential for change of use of the unit from the former A1 Use to an alternative E use would be possible without planning permission being required and this would be a material consideration in any planning decision made.

Conclusion

The development proposed a change of use of an A1 unit to a mixed A1 Sui Generis use would appear to be a suitable use for a parade of shops the application of the Local Plan policies would require an assessment of the proportion of Shop (former A 1) to non-shop units in the frontage however without making a site visit the proposal would appear to be acceptable in general policy terms.

Buckinghamshire Highways: Thank you for your letter dated 20th August 2020 with regard to the above planning application.

I note the Highway Authority has provided previous comments for this site, under application no. PL/20/2288/PNR, which in a response dated 24th August 2020; the Highway Authority had no objection to the change of use from the rear part of the shop and garage to two residential units.

Station Parade is an unclassified road which benefits from parking restrictions in the form of double yellow lines and restricted parking bays, allowing parking for 1 hour on Monday – Saturday between 8am and 6pm and no return within an hour. This application seeks permission for the change of use from a Class A1 shop to an interchangeable use as a Thai massage and/or uses within Class A1.

Page 70

In terms of trip generation, having assessed the proposals, it appears there are 6 treatment rooms and 6 members of staff, 2 full-time and 4 part-time. Following the submission of additional information from the applicant, they anticipate to receive a maximum of 30 customers in a day, which, coupled with the number of staff, would have potential to generate up to 72 daily vehicle movements, two-way. It should be noted that this is the worst-case scenario for the site.

Having carried out a TRICS® assessment of the existing use as a hardware store, it appears the current site is expected to generate approximately 41 daily vehicular movements, two- way. However, it should be noted that the current site has a use class of Class A1 and therefore the site could hold any business within this use class without the need for planning permission. As a result, I consider that the existing site as A1, which is also the proposed interchangeable use, has the potential to generate a larger number of vehicular movements than the proposed development.

With regards to parking, no additional spaces have been provided and therefore all customers will be required to park on the highway, most likely within the restricted parking bays or on Morten Gardens which also benefits from parking restrictions. Whilst this is not ideal, due to the nature of the site, I would expect to see a high turnover in the number of spaces required within a day, given the site would operate on an appointment only basis. In addition, the site is in a highly sustainable location due to the close proximity of Denham railway station and a number of local bus stops with regular services. I note however, that the level of parking proposed is a matter for the planning officer to comment upon and as such I trust that this will have been taken into consideration as part of your assessment of the proposals.

The applicant has stated that at the busiest time of operation, they could receive a maximum of 5 customers per hour due to the capacity of the site; I consider this number of customers per hour also likely for the existing use of the site. Therefore, I do not believe I could sustain a reason for refusal on this basis.

Mindful of the above, I have no objection to the proposed development and no conditions to include in this instance.

I trust these comments have been of some assistance.

Representations 3 comments have been received objecting to the proposal: - Insufficient parking - Insufficient showering facilities - Will attract people from outside of locality - Not Covid-19 compliant - Community needs A1 retail units - Impact on use of outdoor neighbour residential amenity space

Page 71

APPENDIX B: Site Location Plan

Page 72