Wdlp14 00651

WDLP14 00651

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 20:45 To: NewLocalPlan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Princes Risborough expansion

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am given to believe that there are plans in the pipeline to expand the housing stock in Princes Risborough.

My family moved to Risboro in January 2014. We moved here due to the size of the town, its amenities and the nice friendly atmosphere. So far we have not been disappointed. I am now finding it very difficult to want to stay in the town if you start to add considerably more houses. I fully realise that you are doing this because it is being forced upon you by the government. Just because they want you to do it doesn't mean you have to. As I understand it there will be an expansion of the town whether we want it or not. The only thing up for debate is the quantity of houses and where they go. I am in agreement with the RARA in as much as not wanting to breach the Aylesbury railway line boundary and not wanting £26 million spent on a new relief road.

Regards

Russell Abraham

1 WDLP14 00652

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 21:28 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Proposed Development within Longwick & Princes Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sirs/Madam

High Wycombe is the main hub for commercial organisations for employment, therefore to propose building houses in Longwick Village is really not acceptable. Longwick has provided some new homes in demand for local growth but there is little commerce and the community has a cohesive population which works well together. As a possible development plan a small development of 20 houses could be built off of Sawmill Road to keep the village compact, but the field that adjoins Williams Way would cause a mismatch of houses and off Bar Lane would cause more issues with traffic.

Princes Risborough is a small market town and has beautiful views overlook the Chilterns. It is attractive for residents and tourists alike. It again has no commercial value and no new employers so does not need the proposed 2500 homes. The local plan for Princes Risborough does not need upgrading as it has managed to provide all housing growth required. Longwick will become a suburb of Princes Risborough, instead of a village if the proposed development goes over 450 homes which have already been approved. Traffic will increase especially along the Longwick Road, into Lower Icknield Way and Thame Road as these roads are particularly busy now and we are already receiving far too heavy traffic such as lorries and juggernauts travelling on these small roads, so further development of large housing estates will spoil our attractive village and small market town. Please consider the points that we have raised carefully, as we do not wish to become one sprawling housing estate!

Regards Valerie & Ian McPherson 5 The Willows Longwick Bucks HP27 9RQ

1 WDLP14 00653 WDLP14 00654

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 20:48 To: NewLocalPlan Cc: Michael Appleyard; Brian Pollock; [email protected] Subject: Slate Meadow plans, Wooburn Green

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

To the Planning Policy Team,

Re: possible development of Slate Meadow in Wooburn Green under your new "Local plan".

We are writing to object in the strongest possible terms to your development plans. I have been to your information event at Bourne End Library and it is clear that you are unaware of many local issues which are relevant to this specific site.

Here are my reasons for objecting:

 The site is a flood plain. You even show this in your own literature. Surely it would be absolutely ludicrous to build on a flood plain after what some areas of our country have been through recently, most notably a stretch of the nearby Thames. Even if statistically the river is only likely to flood every so often, by building on a green space then you are taking away all of that area which the rain water can naturally and slowly sink into. I understand that there are all sorts of whizzy drainage solutions but I am sure that there is no way they could compete with the natural effect of a field. By building here you will be decreasing the lag time which it takes for the rain water to reach streams and rivers. If you decrease the lag time then you are much more likely to get flash floods. Again, I'd remind you of the devastating effects of flooding only weeks ago in nearby Cookham, Marlow, and further downstream. Of course there is also the problem of ground water. This has been a problem just a few hundred yards away in Cores End Road recently.

 The A4094 Town lane/Brookbank is already busy for much of the day, but especially so during rush hour and school run times. It is already quite a challenge to pull out on to it in my car. Many local children walk along what is a very narrow pavement in some places. I have to say that even at the moment it doesn't feel very safe and if you increase the traffic here (175 houses will do this by a considerable amount) then you are increasing the risk of accidents, and also from a more superficial point of view, not making it a very nice place to live and walk beside. The road simply can't cope. A colleague of my husband was very nearly killed a few months ago just a little further on towards Bourne end by a car coming off the road. They didn't think that he was going to make it. Young children are even more vulnerable, especially when on scooters and bikes. Current housing developments on a number of sites between Wooburn Green and Loudwater will only increase the traffic along this stretch of road. And with a high volume of commercial vehicles and indeed articulated lorries also using this road to access the industrial estate on nearby Thomas Road, further development of this size will place an unbearable burden on this stretch of road (A4094 from Loudwater towards Maidenhead and Marlow).

1 WDLP14 00654  We have a fabulous doctors surgery In Wooburn Green but they are already stretched. It takes up to 3 weeks to get an appointment at the moment, unless it is an emergency appointment. If you build all these houses then there will be even more pressure on the surgery. I understand your point about new houses providing new money to increase services. But I think you will find that there is no more room for doctors/nurses etc. Even little things like the availability of parking outside the surgery will be stretched. This may sound menial but when you have 2 small children in tow things like being able to park close by make life much easier and safer. Again, other nearby developments will place increased strain on this service.

 We are very concerned about where all the new families' children will go to school. Do you know how popular and over subscribed St Paul's School is? There simply is not the space for expansion. Also we have chosen this school for our children because it is a small caring school. We believe that this type of school will support our children in the best possible way by nurturing them in a cosy environment and ultimately helping them to become secure, confident and useful members of society. Even if you could increase the size of the school and provide all the extra resources/ teachers etc the school would lose what I believe to be one of its fundamentally strongest points. I speak with considerable experience in the matter as I am a teacher and have no doubt that young children benefit greatly from smaller settings where everyone is known.

We gather that development plans for this site have been previously refused and so find it hard to understand what has changed to make this a possibility now. The road is now busier than ever and extreme weather events are becoming more common. If anything, those grounds for refusal are now more valid than ever.

I personally feel that you need to stand up to the higher powers who are putting pressure on you to build. There are already enough houses and jobs in Wooburn Green and no more are required. Where will this all end? Are you going to build all over another field every few years? In which case you will find that the very reason why people want to live in our lovely village with a great community disappears and no one will want to live in yet another urban sprawl. In your own information you say that you want to keep villages special. If you develop Slate Meadow then Wooburn Green will merge into Bourne End and both villages will become one. This proposal provides an incredibly short-termed solution, whereas being responsible for planning policy, you should consider the damaging effects that it will have in generations to come.

I disagree that more houses are needed as if you want to live in Wooburn Green then you can just buy one of the existing houses. We recently did and it was all very easy. In fact there were at least 3 houses which we could have bought and at no point did we think that there is a housing shortage problem in the area. FYI - we are an average income family needing a typical 3 bed family home, nothing fancy!.

This may seem more superficial but I also want to stress the importance of having that lovely green space nearby. It is so important psychologically for people to have green spaces and the fresh air and healthy living that they provide. It is great for our children to benefit from this too so close to the school. It has been proved time and time again that people need this. Living in built up areas is not good for our mental health and wellbeing and we know that rates of depression increase too in the absence of such green spaces.

We suggest that if you are not strong enough to stand up to the pressure of having to build more and more, (and it does seem terrible that you are not here to represent us, the residents, who already pay a considerable amount of council tax) then perhaps you should look at building a brand new settlement somewhere. Somewhere that feeds into a decent road which can already cope. Somewhere that could have new and purpose built doctors surgery, school, community hall, as well as roads and transport links which can cope with the expected increase over the next 50 years. You could put in new and up to the minute infrastructure

2 WDLP14 00654 which would be fit for purpose. There are lots of green areas in Bucks so I am sure there are alternative sites which wouldn't have such a detrimental effect on existing residents.

We, our community, really need you to listen to us and understand that this is not what we want or can cope with. I very much hope that you are listening and not just coming out with standard answers or seeing this a good battle to take on. It is very unpopular and you should represent us better.

Yours,

Lucy and Edward Phillips

22 Fromer Road, Wooburn Green, Bucks,

3 WDLP14 00655 WDLP14 00656 WDLP14 00657 WDLP14 00658

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 19:53 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Proposed development at Princes Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Today I m,et Bill Bendyshe-Brown who gave me a leaflet and explained the planned extension for Risborough and Monks Risborough.

I am appalled - firstly the development you propose for Mill Lane is on a water plain. The whole of this winter Mill Lane and the adjoining fields have been water logged and I cannot believe that anyone would plan to develop housing on this spot.

If your plan goes ahead this will completely change Princes Risborough and Monks Risborough and while I am not a NIMBY I really must object to this taking place.

The doctors' surgeries will not cope, neither will the schools and I understand that most of the hosuing will be for problem families from Slough.

Many of us, myself included, retire to Princes Risborough - it had everything to offer but this will completely change if your plans are put into operation.

I have for quite a while been contemplating moving to Shrewsbury in Shropshire, where my daughter and her husband have offered to build a grannie annexe onto their house. Although this is a lovely idea, I have hesitated because I have so many friends in Risborough and love it here, but now I think I will take up their offer and tell them to go ahead and build, as I shall certainly not want to be living here when these plans go into operation.

Please do this on a much smaller scale with a thought to how beautiful the Chilterns are and are to be preserved to all the coming generations.

Anne Legg

1 WDLP14 00659

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 18:55 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: newlocalplan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed from John Ford,

To, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

LOCAL PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF HOUSING IN, AND AROUND, PRINCES RISBOROUGH.

The WDC's leaflet 'for us, for our children, for Everyone' would have us believe that building houses is a sign of prosperity in the country. In reality essential and affordable infrastructure projects plus exports in greater value than imports are the real indicator of a countries prosperity.

The arrangements for the WDC supplied information/discussion were poor. The space within the PR Information Centre was far too small for such an important topic. People felt obliged to move on around the room with the ever incoming tide of people arriving. This did not encourage detailed inspection of the provided information. Furthermore when an item commences with:-Land north of Longwick Road/Mill Lane, one would have hoped that the copy of the Ordnance Survey Map would have included a northing indication to assist orientation. Omission, deliberate or sloppy?.

I think that violation of the Aylesbury railway line boundary, being a natural demarcation for the AONB should not be allowed under any circumstances. Once this barrier is breached it will be open season on the AONB for avaricious builders. The Government has relaxed the planning laws resulting in the prospect of building on Green Belt land. Eric Pickles has granted building permission on appeals by developers. In a well crafted ,balanced article [Daily Telegraph Sat March 29,2014] Sir Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust lays out all that is wrong with The National Planning Policy Framework and points the finger at George Osborne and Nick Boles. Both tried to do what developers wanted and they thought that developers wanted jobs and growth, it was as naive as that. The pieces are still being picked up!.

We are being told that we must have a plan for house building otherwise the Government , and Councils, will decide for us. However, Councils must take notice of any sensible suggestions put forward by the public. In a democracy, supposedly, information exchange is a two way street. Please consider this, this country is of a finite size and we cannot just keep on contemplating house building for any person who might fancy pitching up and living here. This is in addition to those already here needing accommodation.

1 WDLP14 00659

The ongoing struggle to maintain Green Belt and AONB must not relax, once they have gone they will not return. Government and Councils must legislate to ensure that brownfield sites MUST always be used before GB and AONB. Builders profits are irrelevant when measured against the countryside. Furthermore, if an existing property is empty for a long period I suggest that the local council should press the landlord/ absentee owner, to sell or rent Alternatively the council should pay the going rate for the property, refurbish and either rent or sell to a suitable tenant. It is ridiculous for worthwhile properties to decay when they really are needed for use.

The number of possible houses mentioned in the WDC publication is rather high in some of the possible development areas. Are infill homes taken into account at any point?. Within a ten mile radius from Princes Risborough it is always possible to find small developments, 2-8 homes. Over the county/country and a period of time, there is a significant increase in the cumulative number of homes.

While one cannot doubt that more homes are required, possibly some around Princes Risborough. a) The supply must be limited by common sense, a small number or even more infill. b) Impact on the area must be taken into account. Further developments in the surrounding areas would increase the passage of commuting traffic through Risborough as there isn't any major industry/employment in the town. c) Historical attributes, older buildings must not be bulldozed for new social housing. Our past and the remaining buildings are vitally important, not least for our children and grandchildren.

Extensive building of 2500 new homes, as suggested, would alter for ever the characteristics of the market town of Princes Risborough. This would not benefit, in anyway, the existing residents. d) Roads, imagine attempting to build a Risborough bypass when HS2 commences, gigantic trucks on all roads, spoil dumps, a recipe for instant traffic gridlock for years to come. The current local roads are not designed for such loading and could possible subside with an impact on water tables/flooding. e) Extending the boundaries will impinge on existing flood plains creating more problems. f)The design of new homes must be tailored to what is really needed not what some developer decrees based on the profit margins, This also impacts on affordability, the Government assists with house purchase, fine, but even now there is talk of a new housing bubble. What happens if the bubble grows?, speculators buy the houses for profit. If problems arise and interest rates increase the cost of mortgages increases, it might even rise as high as 15%. Do I hear 'nonsense', well that was the mortgage rate when purchasing my first home. NEVER SAY NEVER.

2 WDLP14 00659 WDLP14 00660 WDLP14 00661

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 18:14 To: NewLocalPlan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Plans for Princes Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I am writing to express my deep concerns over the plans to potentially extend the housing stock of Princes Risborough by up to 2500 extra houses – and who knows how many after that.

Princes Risborough is currently a huge bonus to the Chiltern area because of the way it is NOW. It still has the character, charm, history and friendly atmosphere of a proper market town. If the housing stock is increased by any great number we will lose all of that and become another cloned commuter town on the way to London. We have already seen many areas ruined by expansion, eg, High Wycombe and don’t want to see another go that way.

There are promises of improved transport and facilities if we accept more houses. And how long would it take for that happen? We could end up with huge amounts of extra people and cars still on the same roads (already congested at peak times) because the infrastructure is way behind the housing timescale. And we don’t want all those extra people and cars anyway.

Where would all those people work? I already am finding it impossible to get employment locally and have to commute – unwillingly. All those other extra people will be out on the roads commuting away every day, simply increasing the whole dormitory effect and congestion. I hate that I already have to be one of them ‐ don’t make it any worse.

It’s also all very well promising extra infrastructure but those people still have to get out of the residential areas onto the new infrastructure, meaning they will be shortcutting through existing residential areas. I live on a road which is designated to have “traffic calming” measures should the extra houses be built. So clearly they are expecting my road to become a rat run as it will be an obvious short cut to the big roundabout. I chose this road because it was open, airy and not too busy. Imagine how that’s going to change, and not only for my road but for others. There are a lot of older folk in this area, plus a retirement home and a primary school – add that mix to increased traffic and it’s a recipe for disaster.

So I say NO! Let this lovely rural market town be what it was always meant to be – a rural market town. Keep the boundaries where they are and retain what little bit of rural England still remains.

Regards Julie Ivermee

1 WDLP14 00662

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 16:07 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Ibstone Parish Council's comments on the New Local Plan.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Ibstone Parish council has looked at and discussed the New Local Plan and note the acknowledgement of the AONB that is made. The Parish Council has some concern about potential erosion of the Green Belt around Stokenchurch, but otherwise has no comments to make at this stage.

Kind regards

Deirdre Hansen Clerk to the Council

1 WDLP14 00663

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 15:57 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: WDC Local Plan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Sirs,

I have read your proposals regarding the above and would like to register my disapproval on the following grounds:

1...Too little thought has been given to the disruption the extra traffic would generate especially at peak periods.

2...The resultant extra traffic would raise grave concerns regarding local schools and subsequent danger to children.

3...The M40 between Junctions 3 and 4 already has a high accident rate due to the natural terrain and in the event of partial closure due to such an incident would create totally chaotic conditions within the village of Flackwell Heath.

4...At present Flackwell Heath can be regarded as a village but should the proposals be adopted the area would become just an extension of a sprawling High Wycombe and a lot of the characteristics that make this such a great place to live would be lost and the community spirit that goes with it also.

The road issue particularly with the already approved Daws Hill development to be followed with Abbey Barn South and North plus an Industrial park suggests that a far more thoughtful approach to the problem is needed.

For these reasons I wish to register my opposition to the Proposal.

Allan K Davies !3 Sedgmoor Road HP10 9AU

1 WDLP14 00664

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 15:19 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: NEW LOCAL PLAN 2015/31- PRINCES RISBOROUGH (PR)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir

With reference to the above and having considered the various options we would wish to comment as follows :-

We do not believe that the options for either 1000 or 2500 houses is viable. A Development of this size could only be achieved by the the creation of effectively a new town and thus would breach the existing Town Settlement Boundary formed by the Aylesbury railway line. This is not desirable as it will totally change the character of Princes Risborough as a small market town as well as effectively significantly increasing the the population. Developments of these sizes would mean a major increase in the population which would of course need to be supported by guaranteed major infrastructure requirements and with the unlikely provision of job opportunities (new major businesses are unlikely to be attracted to the PR area due to transport links etc etc). To support the increase in population would mean the area becomes just a commuting location (40 minutes to London) which is not appropriate for a small market town.

We would therefore consider that the current proposals for around 450 houses is preferable provided it meets a high level of design and layout including an element of affordable housing to assist in retaining the younger population who have been brought up in the area and who desire to remain have the opportunity to do so. This growth could be achieved by using existing land within current town boundaries which would not impact on green belt land and its closeness to AONB.

We would be pleased if these comments could be taken into account when decisions are taken as to the future of the PR area.

Yours fathfully

David & Lorraine Hodgkinson.

1 WDLP14 00665

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 15:14 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: WDC NEW LOCAL PLAN

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Members

Please ensure that the reaming green areas in and around Harvest Hill along with adjoining locations remain unchanged and existing jurisdictions to protect along with C16 policy remain firmly in place.

The Green Belt is vital for the welfare of the villages,the residents and visitors who enjoy the locality.

The developments already completed are excessive and only just fit the location, any further deterioration will be irretrievable and the care taken to date wasted.

Thank you for your time, I trust you are able to give favourable consideration to this request.

Yours sincerely.

John Parks

Jamara Cottage SL8 5JJ

1 WDLP14 00666

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 15:00 To: NewLocalPlan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Developments suggested for Princes Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sirs, It is with some astonishment that we hear of your consideration of permitting the development of both green belt and good agricultural land for residential use including the Park Mill Estate, Longwick Road and Mill Lane. If approved, these huge developments would create tremendous traffic problems in the area, despite your suggested road improvement schemes. Our own situation, living in Askett, at first glance, would appear not to be affected by these developments, but on closer inspection will affect us in many ways.

1. Traffic - Currently, the road through Askett linking the Lower Icknield Way to the A4010 is used as a "rat-run" for commuters heading for Great Missenden. We have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a number of years, to have this route made into a 20 mph speed limit as the road has no pavements, children in the village going to school in Aylesbury are deposited by school bus on the roundabout and on Winter evenings have to walk down this unlit stretch of road to get home. Just this Winter there have been a couple of near misses and the locals have spent time clearing the bushes from the verges to give the children somewhere to take refuge when cars come flying around the curves at well over the 30 mph limit. With an extra, up to, 4,500 homes, this situation will only get (much) worse. Especially as many on the new home occupants will be headed towards London for their work. Additionally, we understand that the proposed HS2 development will increase construction traffic in the area considerably, particularly with respect to the A4010 from High Wycombe to Aylesbury. Your plans suggest improvements to the road junction at the Tesco roundabout. It seems to us that the whole area could become a vaste construction site both for HS2 and the proposed housing developments, all of which appear to have approximately the same time scale.

2. Extension of Development Towards Kimble - Although you are still at the proposal stage, developers are already drawing up plans for the Mill Lane development - we had a leaflet through our door just last week - asking our concerns. Once development to the North of the railway line is permitted, there is no reason to stop at Mill lane and perceived pressures on local authorities to provide even more homes in their area will result in places such as Askett and Monks Risborough being totally surrounded by housing developments. Who would wish to drive through a housing estate to reach their lovely village, with it's conservation area and area of outstanding natural beauty?? We note in your proposals that Alscot gets an "Open Space" buffer to screen off the new development. Presumably, Askett would have to use the railway line as it's buffer when future councils permit development all the way to Kimble.

3. Loss of Good Agricultural Land - The proposals currently will put almost 55 Hectares of good agricultural land out of use. This is equivalent to annual production of 400 te of wheat, 400 sheep or 200 te of Oilseed Rape. UK is already a net importer of foodstuffs, so to feed those who occupy this land in their new homes we will have to import. Additionally, concreting over this huge area will inevitably lead to less chances of good drainage and maybe we shall be seeing flooding here in Princes Risborough.

1 WDLP14 00666 WDLP14 00667

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 14:55 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Princes Risborough future development

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

We wish to register our opposition to large scale housing development in Risborough and feel strongly that the current proposals for some 400 units on available sites such as Picts Lane and Hypnos are all that are needed to maintain the present thriving commerce without overloading the already overstretched infrastructue including parking, roads, medical services, etc.

Other sites mentioned, as already rejected by Planning Inspectors, are outside the natural boundaries of the town and could only cause division with the loss of it’s present excellent community spirit and ethos.

Donald & Margaret Gill 12 Broad Leys Princes Risborough HP27 9BJ

1 WDLP14 00668

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 14:47 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Housing expansion in Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

We write to express our concerns with the proposed housing expansion in Monks Risborough.

Firstly, traffic, we reside in Place Farm Way and feel that we will suffer from heavier traffic to and from the proposed sites. At present we have no concerns about traffic in our road. The main road through Risborough is busy enough at present. There is insufficent industry in the town to support further expansion and liklihood of attracting more industry is unlikely.

Is the proposed building likely to increase the flood risks in Monks Risborough?

Yours

Mr & Mrs V Dawe

1 WDLP14 00669 WDLP14 00669 Western sides of Wycombe and Princes Risborough are less developed and could be used. Also, a concentration of good quality development, on brown sites for example in the Town Centre would be a good idea, thus relieving pressure on the countryside.

Q7 - I support this. Unfortunately, we live very close to London where many locals work. Locally there are a number of office spaces lying empty. Change of use for housing would be a sensible idea.

Q9 - I Object. Green areas within towns and villages should be preserved in order to maintain a decent quality of life for all, including wildlife!

Q44c - Affordable housing - what does that mean? I would say a ratio of 50/50 affordable housing i.e. housing which is accessible to first time buyers.

2 WDLP14 00670 WDLP14 00671

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 13:39 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Mr James Miller

21 St Johns Avenue

Tylers Green

High Wycombe

HP10 8HP

Ashwells (CW2) Objecting

This proposal will further exacerbate the traffic problems on Cock Lane.I estimate that it will create 200-300 extra vehicles joining the lane near the Middle School,heightening the dangers and pollution levels for the children. It will increase pressure on the already shaking infrastructure of schools,doctors,utilities etc and will have "knock on" traffic congestion problems for other parts of the village.

Gomm Valley (HW3+CW2) Option 1 Objecting

This proposal would create a huge increase in traffic and pollution levels.The Gomm Valley is an unique example of a Chiltern/chalk hanging valley and should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. It would also create a "rat run" to and from the London Road further increasing the pressures on it.

Gomm Valley (HW3) Option 2 Objecting

This proposal would mean the loss of a unique Chiltern landscape and a major loss to the separate identity of Tylers Green. It would cause a major increase to traffic levels using Hammersley Lane,Cock Lane and the London Road.

* An extension to The Peregrine B Park (in isolation) with access only via Gomm Road would be less of an impact on local area.

Hammersley Lane Green Belt review.(Housing options, p 108) Objecting

Any development in this area would mean a loss of separate identity of Tylers Green.It would cause irreversible damage to the character of the 1 WDLP14 00671 WDLP14 00672

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 13:38 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: WDC Local Plan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

As a resident of Princes Risborough, my opinions of the local area plan are obviously based on the proposals for this area of Wycombe District...... I do not agree with the development of any area to the S or West of the now, natural boundry, which is the rail line.....The proposal that a ring road around the town, A4010.... where it has been suggested is a farce....To state that building ,what constitutes a new town , would also intice business and industry to the town,is also a joke..... it just would not happen...... it has been difficult enough , over the last 8/10 years to fill the units in the Princes estate, which were meant to be the big thing when these units went up..There are still enough brown field sites that are in the , about to be developed, stage, that come to the fore, at different times,and can be utilised for new homes...... But then we come to road infratusture around and through the town,which has been a bone of contention for a long time... the number of vehicles travelling between H W and AYB has increased considerably over recent years with amount of homes that have gone up in the Aylesbury Vale, with the extra traffic between the two towns,and the hospital traffic between Stoke M and Wycombe Hospital, on what is generally agreed,one of the worst surfaced main roads in the county,,, and that takes some beating in this county..AND THEN WE COME TO THE OTHER MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION,,, THE CONSIDERABLE EXTRA HEAVY TRAFFIC TO BE CREATEDBY THE WORK ON HS2,tTHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ABOUT TO CRUCIFY US EVEN MORE,,,SO my discontentat these proposals ,after what we all have to pay to live in Bucks, is justifiable,and that youand all associated with this, should totally reassess and Not keep towing the party line,, Michael Tedman..... !9 Willow Way P R

1 WDLP14 00673

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 12:41 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: SLATE MEADOW

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Further to recent meetings in Bourne End about the proposal to build 175 houses on Slate Meadow, I would endorse all the points made at these meetings some of which were covered in the paper issued at the meeting on 24 March. I would like particularly emphasise:

Traffic - there are times (school run), I have great difficult getting to and from my home now because of parking in Stratford Drive & Orchard Drive. There is potential for accidents at the junction of these two roads now, because of cars parked towards the school, & on the bridge. It is already difficult to exit Stratford Drive onto Brookbank road. If there are any problems on the M40, traffic increases drastically in the area.

Parking - in addition to the above, parking in the villages of Bourne End and Wooburn Green is already a major problem. This morning the car park in Wakeman road is full & not for the first time. In addition, there is the prospect of exacerbating the problems of parking on The Parade with the opening of the Tesco's new store. This already causes traffic jams on the main road with people waiting for a parking space, and stopping on double yellow lines. Parking is Wooburn is also a difficulty, especially when visiting the doctors' surgery and the chemist.

Doctors - I have experienced a wait of 3 to 4 weeks to see my GP.

Flooding - The river Wye has been the highest I have seen it in 25 years. I am concerned about the impact of possible worse flooding than experienced this year on my home & its value, if building is permitted on this flood plain. The drains on Brookbank Road are still overflowing today.

"Coalescence"

I am concerned that not enough publicity has been made of the Local Plan. I for one had not appreciated the importance and impact of the leaflet that just appeared along with lots of other junk mail in my letter box. It was only through the activities of local residents that this was brought to my attention.

There are many other issues I would like to raise and the articles in local magazines - Target and Hiya Bucks - cover some of these. I hope that these have been taking into account.

Please acknowledge my email.

Pauline Fisher

1 WDLP14 00674

S mon B r ow

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 12:45 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: GOMM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

REFERENCE HW3

WE ARE WRITING TO YOU TO VOICE OUR STRONG OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED

GOMM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

OUR DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS

JOHN AND WENDY SWEENEY

47 PIMMS GROVE

HIGH WYCOMBE

BUCKS

HP13 7EF

1 THE GOMM VALLEY IS A UNIQUE AREA -THE ONLY DRY VALLEY IN THE

CHILTERNS-IT IS ALSO A BREATHNG SPACE AND A 'GREEN LUNG ' TO THE EAST

OF HIGH WYCOMBE-ONCE THIS IS GONE , IT IS GONE FOR GOOD

2 COCK LANE IS A SINGLE TRACK ROAD WITH PROTECTED HEDGEROWS ,WITH

PASSING PLACES AND A WEIGHT-RESTRICTED SINGLE TRACK RAILWAY BRIDGE

-WHICH SEEMS A VERY LARGE OBSTACLE TO THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WOULD

RESULT FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE GOMM VALLEY AREA.

3 I WORK IN A LOCAL GP SURGERY-AND KNOW HOW THE INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT

1 WDLP14 00674 WDLP14 00674 WDLP14 00674 WDLP14 00674 WDLP14 00674 WDLP14 00675 WDLP14 00676 WDLP14 00677 WDLP14 00678

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 12:11 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Forty Green

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I have had serious problems with despatching my comments on the Forty Green plan. I used part of the copy of that of another resident, Mrs Victoria Thomas, to submit my own objections but it was transmitted as if it had originated from her.Please disregard it.

I am therefore submitting my comments to you directly

My own objections are the same as those from a large number of other residents and I do not see any point in repeating them Suffice to say that, as a resident of Bovingdon Green for nearly 50 years, its rural nature has delighted myself and my late wife and, now that I am alone, would be devastated if it were lost

Yours sincerely

Michael A. Lee

1 WDLP14 00679

S mon B r ow

From: George O'Neill Sent: 01 April 2014 10:41 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Local Plan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Princes Risborough. I accept that the Local Plan is likely to result in major developments in Princes Risborough. The biggest challenge is going to be how to integrate such developments with the existing town. The houses will not be within easy walking distance of the town centre and measures such as an underpass will not be effective. Car use will therefore increase substantially, and a major problem will be car parking capacity. There are problems at the moment especially when market day co‐incides with a service at St Marys. If a solution to this isn’t found, residents in new houses will simply drive elsewhere for shopping etc. Some time ago, there was a suggestion that the fire could be re‐located to provide additional parking space. This possibility needs to be re‐examined.

Longwick. I declare an interest here since I live in Williams Way next to the field which is mentioned as a possible development site. The planning applications in the past have proposed developments of more than 100 houses. I can have no objection in principle to houses being built in the field, but developments of this size would be quite out of proportion to the size of the village and would change it completely. however, I believe the Longwick would benefit from some new housing, especially if it had some low cost houses to allow young couples to stay in the area. The area south of Sawmill Rd would seem to be a suitable site. development in Bar Lane would cause local concern about it opening up a green field area for uncontrolled development. If this fear could be allayed it might be more readily accepted. The local shop/post office would welcome such developments, and the local primary school has capacity fpr more young children

George O’Neill 18 Williams Way Longwick 1st April 201

1 WDLP14 00679

  

From: Sent: 02 April 2014 11:55 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Local Plan

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

LONGWICK

This is a rider to my E‐mail of !st April Any development which threatens the integrity of Longwick will be fiercely resisted. This means that the limit of any house building along Longwick Rd should be far enough back from the B4009 junction to leave a clear and unambiguous gap

George O’Neill 18 Williams Way Longwick 2nd April 2014

1 WDLP14 00680

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 10:37 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: Objection to proposed new M40 junction 3A

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sirs/Madams

Having studied the proposed new junction 3A near Spring Lane in Flackwell Heath, I am writing to object to this mainly because of the very, very severe impact I can see it having on the village of Flackwell Heath and the green belt around it. We already have good access to the M40 motorway from this area without building a new junction that would be no more than 3 miles from junction 4 at Handy Cross or junction 3 at Loudwater. In terms of traffic, Flackwell Heath is already quite busy (and the roads are in poor state of repair), and such a development would invariably make it much worse.

Flackwell Heath is a beautiful village and it would cease to be a beautiful village if that junction were to be built… Flackwell Heath would merely become an extension of High Wycombe and part of an urban sprawl with traffic queues polluting the village with both noise and fumes. Which bright spark believes that rerouting traffic from main routes to, instead, go through a village and its small roads is a good thing? All it would achieve would be to turn a beautiful village into an extension of High Wycombe that would consist of one big polluted traffic jam; it would change from being a nice place to live into a very undesirable place to live [because of the noise and pollution]. Fresh air would become a thing of the past.

Bill

1 WDLP14 00681

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 10:35 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: New Local Plan for Princes Risborough.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Planning Policy Team,

As a long term resident of Princes Risborough, I have witnessed first hand the growing pressures on local amenities, and the great increase in traffic on our local roads, particularly the A4010. Princes Risborough needs to preserve its market town appeal, particularly as a gateway to the Chilterns AONB, but it must be accepted that it also needs to maintain its vitality with some new development, particularly low cost starter homes. There are obvious areas where this can be achieved, such as the old Hypnos site, without destroying this locality for ever.

The potential for 2500 dwellings at the Park Mill Farm site would destroy all that has been precious to the local community, and should be resisted at all costs. The so called improvements in infrastructure that this would bring are difficult to envisage, particularly the so called bypass.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and moderation in all things should override developers’ dreams !.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr Richard McKenzie.

1 WDLP14 00682 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

Responses can be submitted by email to [email protected] (an automatic email response will confirm receipt) or sent by post to: Planning Policy Team - Wycombe District Council Freepost HY120 Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe HP11 1BR

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

This form has three parts: - Part A – Your Details - Part B – Your comment(s). Please expand the comments table as appropriate - Part C – Equalities Monitoring (this will be made anonymous and not shared)

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Dr First Name Paula Surname Norris

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address 147, Heath End Road Flackwell Heath

High Wycombe Bucks

Postcode HP10 9ES

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00682

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Local Plan Document

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local  Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin  which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00682 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Dr Paula Norris

1. To which part of the Plan does this comment relate? . It is essential that under the first heading (Reference) you identify which part of the consultation report you are commenting on, e.g.: • the whole document • chapter (e.g. chapter 4) • Option (e.g. option 2) • paragraph (e.g. para 5.2.64) • consultation question (e.g. Question 25) • appendix (e.g. appendix 3) • Sustainability Appraisal

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Development Objecting I object to the proposal in the new local plan for Wycombe District to of the Land 2031 to develop Land North of Heath End Road (Junction 3A) for a new North of Heath business development and a west facing junction on the M40. There is End Road no need for such a major economic development and the idea is ill (Junction 3A). thought through.

In my view it is ludicrous to suggest that a new business development between High Wycombe and Fllackwell Heath is either needed or desirable for the following reasons:

1. There are already many business parks and trading estates with large and small business units currently empty in the area - all with good road links. To name but a few there are Glory Park in Wooburn Green (up to 12,000 sq ft immediately available to let), Mercury Park in Wooburn Green (8,500 sq ft immediately available to let), Globe Park in Marlow - off the A404 and with rail links - it has many units empty, Vanwall Business Park in Maidenhead, this is half empty. A quick search of the internet WDLP14 00682 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. reveals that there are offices everywhere locally with good existing transport links standing empty. The planners needs to understand that there is not the need now or for the foreseeable future for more of these kinds of offices. Many, many more people work from home these days or in a ‘hot office’ environment and so the amount of office space required by most companies is being reduced.

2. The development is proposed in an area of greenbelt that is very important to prevent the merging of Flackwell Heath with High Wycombe. There is already development planned in Daws Hill that will bring the proximity of Wycombe closer to Flackwell Heath and this proposal will essentially close the gap (coalescence) so that the village community of Flackwell Heath is no longer distinct.

3. There are currently major congestion problems on Heath End Road due to the volume of traffic and it being a bus route. In the centre of the village the round-about junction, Carrington School traffic, zebra crossing and parking by the new Sainsburys development mean the centre of Flackwell Heath is often at a standstill. The inclusion of more traffic into the mix due to a new 3A junction would bring village life to a halt and all the traffic is a danger to school children.

4. The Heath End Road area is already contributing to the need for housing development via the Abbey Barn South and Abbey Barn North housing developments that will inevitably bring more traffic into Flackwell Heath and Heath End Road.

5. The current condition of the roads in and around Flackwell Heath is very poor with large pot holes everywhere. The council would be better improving the current road infrastructure before investing in a new motorway junction that is not needed.

6. There is no requirement for a new west facing junction. It is a very short distance to Handy Cross where the developments to that round-about and associated road system have really improved that motorway junction and made it good to use.

7. It is important to acknowledge that Flackwell Heath sits at the top of a hill and all the roads in and out are very steep (a real problem in winter) and many are single track or have one lane WDLP14 00682 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. only passing points (Sheepridge Lane, Winchbottom Lane, Abbey Barn Lane, Spring Lane, Treadaway Hill, Blind Lane, White Pit Lane, Juniper Lane, Chapman Lane). Encouraging traffic to or from a motorway junction would really not work with the road infrastructure in the area for all these reasons.

8. The extra traffic caused due the Abbey Barn developments is already expected to bring greater congestion and traffic noise, traffic density and speeding traffic along Heath End Road, any other development such as this will be very detrimental.

9. Existing reserve sites and brown field sites should be used for development not green belt or AONB.

10. Flackwell Heath is currently a pleasant location to live and suitable for residents to commute to Wycombe, Maidenhead, Marlow, Beaconsfield and London to work. If you blight the village with a motorway junction and business park or housing and all the associated pressures on infrastructure problems, young families like mine will move away looking for a nicer place to live.

11. The area for the proposed development is around spring Lane which is in Flackwell Heath, it is in greenbelt and is across from residences on Heath End Road. The plans shown in the Wycombe plan do not make the positioning clear and I think that this is very underhand as many residents in Flackwell Heath will not have been able to interpret just how close the development is to them and therefore what the impact would be. WDLP14 00682 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00682 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00683 WDLP14 00684

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 09:59 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: my views

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I am concerned about the whole issue of the proposed plan but especially the volume of traffic it will create. I do traffic surveys for the County Council, and over the last 14 years The volume of traffic has increased tremendously. More housing will result in at least 2,500 more cars etc.--BAD. There is only one school--, and as a retired headteacher, I know this would cause further problems. Also, one post office/shop would be insufficient. The roads are in a poor state-despite some of them being completely re-surfaced this Spring. I am opposed-especially in LONGWICK--where I live. I hope these viewa will be noted

1 WDLP14 00685 WDLP14 00686

  

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 06:26 To: NewLocalPlan Subject: New Local Plan - Proposal for Major Housing Expansion in Princes Risborough

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to the recent publication and presentation of the New Local Plan and with specific reference to the proposal for major housing expansion in Princes Risborough, I am writing to advise that with regards to the options to build 1000 or 2500 houses by 2031:

 There must be solid guarantees that the road infrastructure required to support this increased population will be constructed before development takes place, in particular the bypass to the North West of the town.  Unless the can be guaranteed the proposed development will swamp the capacity of the current road network (there is evidence that this is already beginning to happen at peak hours)

Without this guarantee we wish to strongly object to both options to build 1000 or 2500 house in Princes Risborough.

Yours faithfully

Colin and Jacqueline Platt

Silver Birches Peters Lane Princes Risborough Bucks HP27 0LG

1 WDLP14 00687 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mrs First Name Sasha Surname Whitaker

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address Walnut Rise Spinfield Lane

Marlow

Postcode SL7 2JN

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00687

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Spinfield School parents

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local √ Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin √ which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00687 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation:

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Figure 21, OBJECTING It is outrageous to think that Spinfield Lane could Option 5 accommodate any more traffic; 15 additional houses (“Forty Green (average 2 cars per household = 30 cars) would be a field Marlow”) substantial burden on pedestrians, existing traffic, and households, let alone 150 houses!!

Already parking around Spinfield School creates havoc for surrounding houses – because the lane is already too narrow for many to walk to school safely.

The occasional new house builds on Spinfield Lane have caused traffic nightmares these past two years, with construction deliveries, building vans, kitchen fitters, carpenters, you name it.

Whilst we have lived in the area, the catchment for Spinfield School has shrunk to less than 0.5 miles – families in Spinfield Lane have been refused a place. WDLP14 00687

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. This means most new families will have to find alternative schooling – more traffic, noise and environmental pollution.

Flooding along Henley Road was caused by development of Terrington Hill in previous years; additional houses on this high ground would certainly have implications for flooding in lower Marlow. WDLP14 00687

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00687

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00687

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00688 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name James Surname Grant

Job Title (where relevant) N/A

Organisation (where relevant) N/A

Address 1 Bovingdon Heights Marlow

Postcode SL7 2JR

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00688

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Local friends

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local

Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin Y which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00688 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: James Grant

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Appendix 3, Objecting I am very concerned that the plan has even suggested Figure 21, that the green belt should be eroded. The constant Option 5, nibbling at the edges of such an important resource will eventually ruin the basis for the success and health of whole communities.

Of particular concern is the area NW of Marlow, known as Forty Green. It currently separates Marlow from Bovingdon Green and retains the two as separate Communities. It also provides an open and green backdrop to the Spinfield school.

I do not believe that is should be built upon.

The roads and access surrounding Forty Green are narrow and some do not have footpaths. To allow for a significant increase in the traffic associated with a new housing development the roads would need to be WDLP14 00688 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. widened. The roads are bounded by private land and therefore probably could not be widened inexpensively.

I have three children that attend local schools, including the oversubscribed Spinfield School. All walk to school now, which feels safe enough because of the volume of traffic using the road. Any increase in traffic may make this too dangerous and therefore they would have to be driven.

I am also concerned about the effect of rainwater collection and drainage. I understand that Forty Green field will currently absorb considerable but a development would undermine its use.

Traffic in Marlow is already a problem, particularly at peak times. And whilst the town thrives because people do visit it will soon lose favour if it becomes impossible to drive in to town or park. A significant increase in housing and population would require improved access roads to allow for a faster flow of traffic through town. The access roads are narrow and pedestrians already feel uncomfortable on Spital and West Streets. Widening any road would destroy the general ambience of the place and could negatively impact its commercial success.

Parking can also be an issue, with many of the car parks full to capacity at peak times. An additional and significant housing development would require a plan to increase town centre parking. WDLP14 00688 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00688 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00689 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name Chris Surname Pettit

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address 4 Brookfield Road, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe,

Postcode HP10 0PZ

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00689

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest Slate Meadow

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? WDC February booklet, posted.

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local X Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin X which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00689 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Chris Pettit

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Option 1 Objecting Slate Meadow is a natural flood plain. WDC even show it on their small map in the booklet as being a flood plain. The Environment Agency clearly show that this site is situated on a flood plain and states on their website that this area is likely to flood once every 3 years. The Environment Agency also states on their website that they help local authorities to make a decision to see if a development is suitable. Please can WDC make public the advice that the Environment Agency gave WDC to go ahead and seriously think about this site as suitable for development? Was this advice given before, during or after the recent floods that have occurred across the country? Have drainage studies been carried out? If so, can these be made public? I’d like to know where or how all the displaced water is planned to go or be held or what areas are being WDLP14 00689 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. planned to be sacrificed for alternative flooding. If these studies have not been carried out, why not?

I also have concerns about the increased traffic, transportation and pollution the 175 proposed residences would have on the local area. The roads around the area are already in heavy use and in disrepair. The development would increase the already busy area and make it less appealing to walk and use the area for recreational activities. The development would mean the loss of a natural habitat for countless birds, animals, insects and fauna. The site is a unique local environment where these species thrive at present, giving joy, pleasure and happiness to many local residents. All these species will have to be displaced or even eradicated and that would be criminal. Another gem will be lost forever for future generations to enjoy.

WDLP14 00689 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00690 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name Sasha Surname Loncarevic

Job Title (where relevant) Software Engineer

Organisation (where relevant) Microsoft UK Ltd

Address Walnut Rise Spinfield Lane

Marlow

Postcode SL7 2JN

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00690

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Neighbours, and other parents at Borlases Grammar School and Spinfield School

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local √ Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00690 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation:

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Figure 21, OBJECTING Besides the unsustainable pressure this would put on Option 5 the present roads and schools in the area (the latter (“Forty Green already oversubscribed, and the former being wholly field Marlow”) unsuitable for and additional traffic, parking, etc); the scheme concerns an Area of Attractive Landscape that is only not part of the Area of Natural Beauty due to the overhead power cables. These same cables already cross over the AONB, so the AOL status should in fact be augmented to AONB rather than removed. This is besides the fact that development would entail more housing in close proximity to high voltage cabling which is claimed to be detrimental to human health.

From further research it seems that the area is also of the highest around, which means that development will affect the water absorption and run-off; with potentially increased flooding risks to Marlow town.

The impact of additional traffic has a hidden financial WDLP14 00690

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. cost, as well as safety implications for the young families whose children use the road (walking to school for example). Major disruption in traffic flow can even be seen when properties in the area have minor improvements, or when infrastructure maintenance necessitates closing of the narrow routes. Chalkpit Lane is a narrow and winding road with people often clipping wing mirrors on passing; and Spinfield Lane is mostly single-track. Additional traffic load to support more families in the area would necessitate widening of these lanes, and construction would have months if not years of negative impact on 100’s of families in and around the area due to the already very limited access routes. WDLP14 00690

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00690

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00690

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00691 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title mrs First Name jennie Surname Millward-Dugdale

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address 5 Hawthorn Place Tylers Green

Postcode HP10 8EH

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00691

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest Ashwells

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Village Voice

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local y Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin y which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00691 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Jennie Millward-Dugdale

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

Whole objecting I am very concerned about the proposals for Ashwells.This will increase social needs such as school places, medical services, even shopping requirements. Clearly the traffic would impact the villages to the detriment of the village environment.

The motorway access to the proposed new junction 3 would also exacerbate the traffic problems. WDLP14 00691 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00691 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00692 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mrs First Name Heather Surname Cassidy

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address 40 West End, Wirksworth, Derbyshire,

Postcode DE4 4EG

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00692

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation?

Link passed on to my by a friend in Marlow. I own a property in Forty Green Drive, Marlow, which is currently let to tenants.

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local x Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00692 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Heather Cassidy

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

Figure 21, Object Removal of Green Belt status from the land behind Option 5 Spinfield School and development for housing would have the following disadvantages:

1. The access to this site is either via Chalkpit Lane or Spinfield Lane. Both these accesses are narrow and winding and already pose a problem for pedestrians and vehicles. Children walking to school and nursery in the area, mothers with pushchairs etc will be disadvantaged. 2. The school is already oversubscribed. 3. The field behind Spinfield School currently acts as a sump for heavy rainfall which would otherwise have to run down the hill towards Marlow and the main roads. Marlow already has a flooding issue. 4. The green belt prevents sprawl from Marlow to Bovingdon Green and preserves the integrity of WDLP14 00692 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. both communities. WDLP14 00692 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Both communities. 5. Parking in Marlow is already a problem. Residents in that part of Spinfield are unlikely to walk into town and will inevitably take cars which will add to the congestion. 6. Light pollution – the site is at a high point and will have an impact on the whole night sky.

WDLP14 00692 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00693

Re:Local Plan Options

Dear Sir,

I wish to record my comments regarding options for the local plan as part of the consultation that has taken place during Feb/Mar 2014.

My comments are of a general nature and also relate to options for Wycombe Air Park (HW5 in your options document.)

My first comment relates to the population in the district at census being ‘significantly higher than was expected’. I assume we were housing the additional population and therefore find the figures in the document both confusing and misleading.

From a general point of view, I support building on any ‘brown-field’ location, before any consideration is given to development in the green belt. I also believe it would be helpful, as part of this process, for the council to publish a list of all unoccupied office and industrial premises, together with an indication of when those locations became unoccupied. That would provide an indication of the potential for ‘brown-field’ development.

Regarding the options under designation HW5, I support Option 1, intensifying the existing business area, but only for aviation related activities, in the line with the existing covenants.

I strongly oppose HW5 option 2 which involves expansion towards the southern part of the airfield. The area is not existing ‘brown-field’ and would involve development within the greenbelt and would, I believe, breach existing covenants. I believe it would also make flying almost impossible and I believe loose the opportunity that exists to develop a vibrant aviation centre in this location.

Alan & Jenny France

29, Claymoor Park Booker Marlow Bucks SL7 3DL

WDLP14 00694 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name Graham Surname Brown

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address 147, Heath End Road Flackwell Heath

High Wycombe Bucks

Postcode HP10 9ES

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00694

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Local Plan Document

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local  Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin  which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00694 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Mr Graham John Alastair Brown

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Development Objecting I am outraged by the proposal in the new local plan for Wycombe of the Land District to 2031 to develop Land North of Heath End Road (Junction 3A) North of Heath for a new business development and a west facing junction on the M40. End Road There is no need for such a major development and the idea at best is ill (Junction 3A). thought through in a desire to be radical and at worst comes across incompetent and out of touch.

In my view it is ludicrous to suggest that a new business development between High Wycombe and Flackwell Heath is either needed or desirable, and should not be used as an excuse to require the introduction of a new north bound M40 motorway junction for the following reasons:

1. There are currently major congestion problems on Heath End Road due to the volume of traffic and it being a bus route. In the centre of the village the round-about junction, Carrington School traffic, zebra crossing and parking by the new Sainsburys development mean the centre of Flackwell Heath is often at a WDLP14 00694 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. standstill. The inclusion of more traffic into the mix due to a new 3A junction would bring village life to a halt and all the traffic is a danger to school children. I am a Governor at Carrington Infant school close to the centre of the village and safety of our children is a major concern. There is already congestion and potential danger to school children without in any way adding to the volume of traffic that would inevitable happen with the introduction of the new motorway junction.

2. I do not understand or recognise the need for more industrial premises. There are already many business parks and trading estates with large and small business units currently empty in the area - all with good road links. To name but a few there are Glory Park in Wooburn Green (up to 12,000 sq ft immediately available to let), Mercury Park in Wooburn Green (8,500 sq ft immediately available to let), Globe Park in Marlow - off the A404 and with rail links - it has many units empty, Vanwall Business Park in Maidenhead, this is half empty. A quick search of the internet reveals that there are offices everywhere locally with good existing transport links standing empty. The planners needs to understand that there is not the need now or for the foreseeable future for more of these kinds of offices. Many, many more people work from home these days or in a ‘hot office’ environment and so the amount of office space required by most companies is being reduced.

3. The development is proposed in an area of greenbelt that is very important to prevent the merging of Flackwell Heath with High Wycombe. There is already development planned in Daws Hill that will bring the proximity of Wycombe closer to Flackwell Heath and this proposal will essentially close the gap (coalescence) so that the village community of Flackwell Heath is no longer distinct.

5. Heath End Road is already extremely busy with a large volume of traffic. In my opinion it is already dangerous with cars, buses WDLP14 00694 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. (stopping and starting) and heavy lorries using it as a “rat run”. The Council should be considering how they could reduce traffic , with perhaps a width restriction rather than considering to add further volume and weight.

6. The current condition of the roads in and around Flackwell Heath is very poor with large pot holes everywhere. The council would be better improving the current road infrastructure before investing in a new motorway junction that is not needed. And as stated above will only add to the problems.

7. There is no obvious requirement for a new west facing junction. It is a very short distance to Handy Cross where the developments to that round-about and associated road system have really improved that motorway junction and made it good to use.

8. The distance between Handy Cross and the South bound Loudwater junction is so short, the sections of the existing M40 are elevated and the motorway runs through undulating geography that a new motorway junction (especially in winter with ice and fog), I am sure will become an accident blackspot. The council/DFT would be better to consider further development of Handy Cross and Loudwater junctions.

9. It is important to acknowledge that Flackwell Heath sits at the top of a hill and all the roads in and out are very steep and many are single track or have one lane only passing points (Sheepridge Lane, Winchbottom Lane, Abbey Barn Lane, Spring Lane, Treadaway Hill, Blind Lane, White Pit Lane, Juniper Lane, Chapman Lane). Encouraging traffic to or from a motorway junction would really not work with the road infrastructure in the area for all these reasons. In the winter with snow and ice this elevated position causes serious dangers and congestion today without adding to the volume.

10. I do not support the provision of new homes as part of the motorway Junction proposal Flackwell Heath is already in danger of becoming joined with High Wycombe with the development at Dawes Hill and Abbey Barn Road (see 3 above)

11. The area for the proposed development is around spring Lane which is in Flackwell Heath, it is in greenbelt and is across from WDLP14 00694 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. residences on Heath End Road. The plans shown in the Wycombe plan do not make the positioning clear and I think that this is very underhand as many residents in Flackwell Heath will not have been able to interpret just how close the development is to them and therefore what the impact would be.

12. Existing reserve sites and brown field sites should be used for development not green belt or AONB.

13. The Junction and associated Business Park would visually blight what is a naturally pretty piece of countryside with great views over the High Wycombe valley. The current M40 is well hidden and the new Junction would be a blot on the landscape.

14. Flackwell Heath is currently a pleasant location to live and suitable for residents to commute to Wycombe, Maidenhead, Marlow, Beaconsfield and London to work. If you blight the village with a motorway junction and business park or housing and all the associated pressures on infrastructure problems, young families like mine will move away looking for a nicer place to live.

WDLP14 00694 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00695 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mrs First Name Catherine Surname McLean

Job Title (where relevant) Teacher

Organisation (where relevant) St Teresa’s Primary School, Aylesbury Road, Princes Risborough

Address 28 Northfield Road Princes Risborough

Bucks HP27 0HY

Postcode HP27 0HY

Telephone Number N/A

WDLP14 00695 1. Personal Details Email Address

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Posters in Risborough market square and a brochure posted through my door, local press and word of mouth.

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local

Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00695 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Mrs C. McLean

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. The whole Objecting Princes Risborough is a small market town. document People choose to live here because of its quiet, peaceful

location, outstanding natural beauty and close community ‘feel’ – the planned ‘extension’ of our town into yet another urban sprawl will result in people (who have any choice in the matter!) moving away,

particularly skilled professionals. This would have a detrimental effect on the town and alter the nature of it

substantially.

There are insufficient jobs in Princes Risborough for an

influx of new residents. The planned widescale development of new homes here would be neither sustainable nor useful. The town does not have the necessary infrastructure/roads to enable all these new

people to travel to where there is work (ie High Wycombe/Aylesbury). Why not build homes in urban areas, where there are jobs for the people you wish to house? WDLP14 00695 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. The whole Aylesbury and High Wycombe are established towns document Objecting with many jobs for people who live there. Princes Risborough is not.

WDLP14 00695 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00696 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name john Surname rodgers

Job Title (where relevant) partner

Organisation (where relevant) Deloitte

Address 19 Spinfield Lane Marlow

Postcode SL7 2JT

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00696

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? I was advised by a group of local residents who are against the proposals

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local y Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00696 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation:

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Option 5 - Objecting 1. Access issues - the area is served by narrow lanes and a narrow page 108 cul-de-sac. 200 new houses could lead to up to 400 more cars moving about the area. Spinfield Lane is already in a poor condition following the recent rain and current traffic use.

2. Pressure on local schools - Spinfield is already over subscribed - where will the new children go to school?

3. Dust and noise pollution during construction of a potentially large development - this will have a massive impact on children at Spinfield as the school backs onto the site, as well as residents surrounding the site.

4. Taking this area out the Green Belt will contribute to urban sprawl and take away the 'village feel' of Bovingdon Green

5. Topography of the site - It is one of the highest points in Marlow and any development of this scale would be overbearing. The land soaks up lots of the rainwater which falls in the area - any WDLP14 00696 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. development would cause greater surface run-off generating an increased risk of flooding down the hill into Marlow (many homes which have already been blighted by flooding)

I am furious that this site is being proposed for development. The area around Bovingdon Green down towards Forty Green Drive is a special area of countryside in a peaceful part of Marlow. The area is not suitable for development from an infrastructure perspective and any development would have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of what should be highly protected green belt land. WDLP14 00696 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00696 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00697 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name R Surname Johnson

Job Title (where relevant) n/a

Organisation (where relevant) n/a

Address 1 Hillside Road, Tylers Green

High Wycombe

Postcode HP108JJ

Telephone Number

Email Address WDLP14 00697

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest

Client Name

Client Address

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation?

Council website

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local

Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires copies of all representations to submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing and submitting a response to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Wycombe District Council. You are also accepting that any information received by us, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. WDLP14 00697 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation:

1. To which part of the Plan does this comment relate? . It is essential that under the first heading (Reference) you identify which part of the consultation report you are commenting on, e.g.: • Transport (4.20 & 5.3) specifically new 3a M40 junction proposal • Chapter 5 – key site being considered (Chepping Wye valley), specifically section 5.14 & 5.4 relating to Gomm Valley and Ashwells

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. 4.20 & 5.30 Objecting Q26a. Not supported. I consider that this is completely Proposal to inappropriate use of Green Belt land to develop motorway create new infrastructure/junctions. High priority should be given to M40 junction protect the green open space around High Wycombe in long (‘3a’). Page 50 term development plans. & 51 Q26b. Not supported. I don’t support the provision of a new Q26a,b & d motorway junction at all. This will cause increased traffic flows through surrounding villages as vehicles rat run and are redirected via Sat Navs . In Tylers Green the access routes to a new junction 3a via Cock Lane and Hammersley Lane would involved increasing traffic flow via both the First and Middle schools raising greater safety risks as commuters and school traffic compete for road use. As a result this is a strong objection – rat running may happen but to direct it via school routes is unsupportable. Q26d. Not supported. Public funding would be better used to support other public transport initiatives than motorway infrastructure expansion. WDLP14 00697 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. 5.14 & 5.4 Objecting • Assessment of the burden of additional school age relating to children appears underestimated. The likely impact of Gomm Valley this development is that the additional schooling and Ashwells provision will not be served without the addition of Page 52 another state school in Tylers Green. This cost and complexity is not factored in the proposals. • The GP surgery in Tylers Green is already overstretched and could not be expanded sufficiently to support the additional demands that this development would place. This cost and complexity is not factored in the proposals. • The additional traffic would mean Cock Lane and the nature of the area would have to be transformed to the detriment of the village and countryside. • Increased traffic flow on the roads that serve the current First and Middle schools will present an increased safety risk. WDLP14 00697 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00697 1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc.

WDLP14 00698 THE RECTORY HARVEST HILL BOURNE END BUCKS SL8 5JJ

April 1st, 2014. The Planning Policy Team, Wycombe District Council, Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe, HP11 1BB

Dear Sirs,

In response to the consultation document regarding the proposed New Local Plan for Bourne End and specifically the area of Hawks Hill, Harvest Hill, Widmoor and Kiln Lane, please find below our strongly-held views:

Q35 a) Option A – based on Policy C16 Retaining C16 and ensuring that it is incorporated in the new Local Plan is our preferred option as C16 was designed to prevent creeping urbanisation and to protect the characteristics of this semi- rural area by limiting development to low density, well landscaped and individual homes on large plots together with recognising the importance of the designated areas of Green Space, trees, banks, hedgerows and sunken lanes which characterise this Chiltern landscape. Our firm view is that these safeguards and restrictions on development should be retained and strictly enforced.

b) Option B - It is vital to this area that we retain the 4 designated areas of Green Space covered by Policy C16. These are:

- Sappers’ recreation field - Woods between Kiln lane and Grassy lane - The corner between Harvest Hill and Kiln lane adjacent to the Chequers Inn - Heavens Lea, the triangle of land at the junction of Hawks Hill and Hedsor Road - These formal and informal green spaces are part and parcel of this semi-rural area. Any extension of this designation to other green areas in the vicinity would be desirable but probably unlikely in the present climate.

Option C – A less strict approach, allowing development in these areas. For the reasons stated above, this option is wholly unacceptable and would inevitably jeopardise the semi-rural nature of this area. WDLP14 00698

Review of the Green Belt The proposed review of the Green Belt is also of huge concern as this would put at risk many of the green fields and rural aspects of both this parish and the adjoining Hedsor parish.

This area is wholly unsuitable for a large housing project. Quite apart from the detrimental and irreversible effects on this historic landscape, this area has not the infrastructure to support large scale housing. Our narrow country roads are already overcrowded and in a parlous state and there is no public transport whatsoever. It would be madness and unsustainable to embark upon a housing development in this area.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that WDC should ensure that Policy C16 or its equivalent is retained and incorporated into the New Local Plan. We need to protect our rural setting, and designated Green Spaces for the local community today and for future generations.

Yours faithfully,

Mr & Mrs John Summerlin WDLP14 00699

WDLP14 00699

Date C Schmidt-Reid Esq 1 April 2014 Principal Planning Officer Planning and Sustainability Wycombe District Council Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe HP11 1BB

By E-mail and Post

Dear Sir

Wycombe District Local Plan – January 2014 Options Consultation Document West’s Yard Industrial Estate, Slough Road, Saunderton HP14

Daniel Watney LLP has been instructed by Dandara Ltd to submit representations to the recently published January 2014 options consultation Wycombe District Local Plan. They are submitted on the basis of Dandara Ltd being the freehold owner of the West’s Yard Industrial Estate site in Saunderton, HP14.

These representations will firstly consider how the options consultation Local Plan assesses future housing need and economic projections over the Plan period. They will then consider the locational, physical and occupational constraints which make West’s Yard no longer viable for employment generating purposes before demonstrating the important future role of the site in assisting the Council to deliver much needed new housing on Brownfield land in a sustainable location.

Housing Need

The options consultation Local Plan includes four scenarios for housing growth over the Plan period 2011-31. These are based on the conclusion of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in 2013.

In respect of establishing future housing need, para. 47 of the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is very clear in that “Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area”. However, the ability of LPAs to meet full, objectively assessed private and affordable housing need is caveated by such development being consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF.

The options consultation Local Plan recognises that if the Council were to meet full, objectively assessed housing need in the District this would equate to circa 1,300 new homes per annum of which 380 would be affordable. The options consultation Local Plan concludes on pg. 21 that it is not realistic to consider delivering the quantity of new homes that would be required to meet full, objectively assessed housing need due to conflicts with other aspects of the NPPF including Green Belt.

In respect of the four considered housing scenarios, we would reiterate the advice set out in the NPPF that the Council should be seeking to meet full, objectively assessed need for private and affordable housing unless conflicts arise with other parts of the NPPF. The Council should therefore satisfy themselves that the eventual chosen housing target is based upon realistic conclusions regarding future migration projections, realistic household formation rates and West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 2 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

critically, has considered in detail the potential of all sites included in the February 2014 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to accommodate new homes.

As we will go on to explain in more detail latterly in these representations, the West’s Yard site is no longer viable for employment generating uses due to a number of locational, physical and market orientated constraints and is therefore a potential housing delivery site. The options consultation Local Plan does not currently consider housing that could be delivered at West’s Yard as counting towards addressing future housing need, due to deficiencies in the evidence base underpinning the Plan.

As such, the options consultation Local Plan is considered to be in conflict with the NPPF as it is looking to establish a housing target that does not meet full, objectively assessed private and affordable housing need on the basis that there are insufficient sites in the District to deliver housing that would not conflict with other NPPF policy objectives, particularly Green Belt. Due to deficiencies in the evidence base underpinning the Plan, we consider that other sites are available for residential development, including West’s Yard, which would allow the Council to increase the number of homes they can realistically deliver over the Plan period to meet actual housing need.

Dandara Comment 1 – The LPA should not consider taking forward a housing target that does not meet full, objectively assessed need for private and affordable homes unless all potential housing sites have been properly considered. Due to serious concerns regarding the robustness of parts of the underlying Local Plan evidence base, we do not consider that all potential housing sites have been properly considered and thus housing supply assumptions are flawed.

Spatial Principles of Locating New Housing

As per para. 17 of the NPPF, when considering land for development “allocations … should prefer land of lesser environmental value”. It is therefore necessary for the Council to satisfy themselves that all potential land defined under Option 1 on pg. 26 of the options consultation Local Plan, that is Brownfield land within existing towns and villages, has been considered for residential development prior to considering development on Greenfield sites.

There is concern that due to deficiencies in the evidence base underpinning the options consultation Local Plan, that sequentially preferable Brownfield sites that could accommodate future housing development to meet objectively assessed need are not being properly considered. This is in conflict with para. 17 of the NPPF in terms of both promoting the development of Brownfield sites ahead of Greenfield sites and protecting land that is of higher environmental value. Given the high demand for new housing in the District, all existing Brownfield sites that could be developed for residential purposes should be carefully and robustly assessed, applying an accurate evidence base.

Dandara Comment 2 – All potential Brownfield sites that could accommodate future housing should be considered under Options 1 and 2 of the options consultation Local Plan prior to Greenfield sites being considered under Options 3 and 4.

Economic Forecasting

When considering economic projections, para. 032 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that “Authorities will need to take account of business cycles and make use of forecasts and surveys to assess employment land requirements”. Furthermore, “market segments should be identified within the employment property market so that need can be identified for the type of employment land advocated. The available stock of land should be compared with the particular requirements of the area”.

The NPPF concludes at para. 22 that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”.

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 3 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

Whilst Dandara Ltd has no objection to Wycombe DC matching job growth with housing growth, whereby each additional economically active person generated by future housing is matched with one new job, this is on the basis that the land to be provided to deliver these new jobs is in the right place and is attractive to the relevant growth sectors.

In respect of locations for new jobs, Dandara Ltd agrees with the conclusion set out on pg. 35 of the options consultation Local Plan that “there are a number of … existing employment sites in the rural areas of the District, but generally in terms of locating new commercial development, they are remote and unsustainable and in most instances have poor connectivity to the strategic road network making them unattractive commercially for major employment development. They are also constrained either by the AONB, Green Belt or both”.

Furthermore, the projected growth in jobs over the Plan period of 13,000, which is the polar opposite of the 12,000 jobs lost in Wycombe District over the past 10 years, can only be realised if the employment land offer of the District meets the occupational requirements of those sectors that are projected to deliver this jobs growth. Having regard to the January 2014 draft of the Wycombe Economy Study and Employment Land Review these growth sectors are as follows:

- Office based professional services (+ 9,630 over Plan period); - Office based administrative and support services (+ 4,730 over Plan period); - Office based computing and information services (+ 3,030 over Plan period); - Retail (+ 1,500 over Plan period) and; - Wholesale warehousing (+ 1,140 new jobs).

It is therefore critical that when considering the suitability of existing and future employment generating sites to accommodate job growth, the options consultation Local Plan objectively assesses each site based upon its attractiveness to those sectors that will generate jobs growth. As per para. 22 of the NPPF, the LPA should not be protecting sites which are unlikely to be attractive to such sectors from a locational, physical or market orientated perspective, especially if the release of such sites could contribute to addressing housing need through residential development.

Dandara Comment 3 – All existing and future employment sites that are being considered to accommodate forecasted future jobs growth, should be objectively assessed to ensure that they meet the locational, physical and market orientated demands of those occupiers who will generate jobs growth over the Plan period. Historic employment sites that will not be attractive to future employment market sectors, should not be protected and allowed to lie vacant or to further deteriorate and should instead be released for alternative land uses.

Site Specific Allocation – Employment Sites

The future economic value of existing employment sites, including West’s Yard, that are considered for either retention or release as part of the options consultation Local Plan process have been informed by the draft 2014 Economy Study and Employment Land Review.

We strongly object to the current options consultation Local Plan because its conclusions regarding West’s Yard, and likely other existing employment sites, are based on a fundamentally flawed evidence base in the form of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review. Whilst we appreciate that the document is in draft form, it is still being used to inform the direction of policy.

The application of this flawed evidence base is unacceptable on the basis that it is informing emerging policy as part of a statutory consultation process and whilst it is in draft form, members of the public and other stakeholders will still use the evidence base and conclusions to inform their consultation responses. Secondly, it is clear that the evidence base has resulted in question 38 of the draft Local Plan being unduly weighted towards retaining West’s Yard as an employment site due to the perceived lack of open yard sites available within Wycombe District which is factually incorrect. We would question the robustness of the Local Plan consultation process given that the conclusions it contains regarding employment sites are

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 4 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

based on what we consider to be a fundamentally flawed evidence base which is misdirecting future employment policy in direct conflict with the NPPF, particularly para. 22.

Site Specific Allocation – Site Viability

As required by para. 161 of the NPPF, the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review has reappraised the suitability of previously allocated employment sites for future employment generating purposes. One key element of this reappraisal, as made clear in NPPF para. 173, is to pay careful attention to viability and costs to ensure that the eventual Local Plan is deliverable. As per NPPF para. 22, this will avoid planning policies seeking the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose due to them not being viable.

In light of the above guidance, Appendix 1 of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review tests the viability of a number of existing employment sites including West’s Yard. The purpose of this viability testing as set out in para. 1 is to “… establish if it is viable to keep these sites for employment uses”.

As we will go on to explain, there are a number of fundamental flaws associated with the methodology that underpins this viability appraisal that we consider call into serious question the soundness and defensibility of the evidence base and its associated conclusions and recommendations. Whilst we consider these flaws are artificially inflating the viability of the West’s Yard site, the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review nevertheless concludes that “the results of our viability testing show that continued use of the site for an employment site of industrial use is unviable as the developers 20% margin cannot be achieved”. Furthermore, whilst there is an acknowledgement that viability will improve with market conditions “… there is uncertainty whether viability will improve to sufficient levels to enable viable development because the Estate will primarily attract local occupiers which will limit the yield improving”. As previously explained, as the PBA draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review contains significant errors in respect of assessing the future viability of the West’s Yard site for future employment generating purposes, the viability of the site will be significantly more compromised than PBA currently conclude and thus wider improvements in the market will result in no change to this unviable position.

Despite the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review concluding that the continued use of the site for employment purposes is unviable, especially given the widely quoted poor condition of the existing site and accommodation, the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review recommends that West’s Yard is retained as an employment site. This is in direct conflict with the NPPF and NPPG which both recognise that only viable sites should be allocated for employment generating purposes to avoid sites lying vacant and preventing their use for alternative purposes. It is important to note that the earlier iteration of the Wycombe DC 2004 Economy Study also concluded that, over a decade ago, the site was of exceptionally poor quality being ‘little more than shacks’ and was only of value if redeveloped. This is significant as two independently commissioned studies have now both concluded that the West’s Yard site requires redevelopment to contribute to the future employment offer of the District which cannot be realistically achieved due to an absence of viability.

We would reiterate that the Council’s own evidence base recognises that the continued use of the site for industrial purposes, even in the context of an economic upturn, will be unviable. The recommendation to continue to protect the site for employment purposes is therefore in direct conflict with para. 22 of the NPPF which states that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose” and risks making the Local Plan unsound on deliverability grounds due to an inaccurate evidence base.

Dandara Comment 4 - The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review has confirmed that West’s Yard is not viable for continued employment use and should therefore not be allocated for employment purposes in the Local Plan as per NPPF and NPPG guidance. Instead, the site should be allocated for residential development as per Policy DM5 of the adopted 2013 Delivery and Site Allocations Plan.

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 5 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

Site Specific Allocation – Site Viability Evidence Base

As mentioned above, we consider that there are a number of inaccuracies and fundamental flaws contained within Appendix 1 of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review in respect of West’s Yard, Saunderton. We consider that these inaccuracies, which we briefly summarise below, would further undermine the viability of the site for continuing employment purposes:

Deliverable Floorspace – The existing buildings present on the site have a combined floor area of circa 2,859 sq m. The site is located in the Green Belt and therefore any redevelopment proposal must have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than at present (NPPF para. 89). The Economy Study and Employment Land Review assesses the future viability of the site based upon redevelopment to deliver 8 new industrial units with a combined floor area of 12,800 sq m. This represents a 9,941 sq m floorspace increase compared with the existing or a 348% rise which is clearly unacceptable in Green Belt terms. The viability appraisal is therefore based on a quantum of new industrial floorspace that would never be deliverable on the site whilst it lies in the Green Belt; Low Bridge – The Economy Study and Employment Land Review states that restricted access to the site due to the railway bridge has been rectified due to the lowering of the road. This is incorrect, with the height limit of 11’-9’’ clearly visible to anyone who has visited the site which results in a number of larger vehicles associated with typical light industrial / storage uses being unable to access the site; Access - Appendix 3 of the Economy Study and Employment Land Review is incorrect in describing the access and location of the site as ‘good’ which cannot be the case given the rural location and vehicular access constraints due to the low bridge and hairpin bend to Slough Lane to the west. There are also basic inconsistencies within Appendix 3 of the Study which provides West’s Yard with a rating of 2 being ‘good’ for location but the Molins site, which is immediately to the north and a comparable distance to the M40 and High Wycombe, with a rating of 3 being ‘average’; Rent – The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review assumes an achievable rent of £75 per sq m yet recognises in para. 19 that the site is in a “remote location”. Whilst local agent Duncan Bailey Kennedy consider that a rent of £75 per sq m is achievable for newly developed industrial premises in Wycombe, they do not consider this would ever be achievable in Saunderton which as a very best case, could secure rents of £65 per sq m if demand existed for such premises in this location, which it does not. We would ask for comparable rural industrial sites to be provided where £75 per sq m rents have been achieved to ensure a robust and defensible evidence base; Rent Free – Local agent Duncan Bailey Kennedy considers that a 3 month rent free period would only be an option if demand for the units was very high. In this location, they feel that in addition to the 3 month rent free period, an average effective void period of 24 months should be allowed for to reflect the rate at which the units would be let or sold. The appraisals should be updated to reflect this; Yield – The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review has applied a yield of 7.5% which is an extremely competitive yield even for well located premises in Wycombe. Due to likely void periods and the quality of tenant that would be attracted to West’s Yard, a yield of 9% is considered to represent the absolute best case and unless evidence can be provided to demonstrate otherwise, the appraisal should be amended; Purchasers Cost – These have been assumed at 4.5% which is contrary to the accepted industry standard of 5.75% and the appraisal should be amended accordingly; Professional Fees – These have been assumed at 8% which is considered to be the absolute minimum, with a figure of between 10%-12% more realistic; Sales Costs – The sales costs have been calculated incorrectly as an agency fee of 10% on rent of £75 per sq m x 12,800 sq m gives a total of £96,000 rather than £12,000. The same calculation error has been made in respect of legal fees which should be £48,000 rather than £6,000. The appraisal should be amended accordingly.

Dandara Comment 5 – The evidence base that is underpinning conclusions regarding the viability of existing employment sites for future employment generating uses is fundamentally flawed and artificially elevating the likely viability of such sites, including West’s Yard. To demonstrate this point, we have amended the original development appraisal included at Annex 2 of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review which provides an

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 6 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

accurate indication of the viability of the West’s Yard site for future employment generating purposes.

Site Specific Allocation – Yard Space

Despite the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review concluding that the continued use of West’s Yard for employment generating uses is unviable, it nevertheless recommends retention against NPPF and NPPG guidance due to “it providing low cost yard space for small businesses that it is not available elsewhere in the District”.

The first point to note is that the conclusion of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review is fundamentally flawed on the basis that if the site is unviable for future employment generating uses, it is not going to contribute to the availability of future yard space in the District because there is no value in improving or redeveloping the site. Whilst we acknowledge that the site could physically continue in its current poor condition for the next few years, it would require wholesale improvement / redevelopment during the Plan period (certain units have already been condemned). It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the redevelopment of the site is not viable and therefore as per para. 22 of the NPPF, it should not be protected for future employment generating uses as there is no realistic likelihood of the site being brought forward for such purposes.

Regardless of the viability of the site for continued employment generating uses, the Marketing and Employment Land Review that accompanies these representations clearly demonstrates that a number of alternative yard focused employment sites are available on the market at a variety of prices, specifications and tenures. Furthermore, these sites are all preferably located compared to West’s Yard and do not suffer the number of locational, physical and operational constraints that accrue to Saunderton. In particular, the low bridge and hair-pin approach on Slough Lane severely limit accessibility to the site for larger vehicles which are likely to represent highest demand for the type of open yard space perceived to be the primary offer of West’s Yard. The conclusion of the PBA Study in respect of West’s Yard representing a rare example of available open yard space within Wycombe District is therefore incorrect and has misled the wording of draft Local Plan Question 38 which is premised on West’s Yard providing employment land that is unavailable elsewhere in the District.

We would also question whether lawfully the site could accommodate unlimited open yard storage for goods and vehicles given the impact this would have upon the Green Belt and AONB.

Dandara Comment 6 – Regardless of viability, there are a variety of available yard sites in Wycombe District that do not suffer the range of locational, physical and operational constraints that accrue to West’s Yard and would cause less harm to the Green Belt and AONB as a result of large-scale open storage.

Marketing and Employment Land Review

Regardless of the numerous inaccuracies contained in the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review as identified above, para. 19 still concludes that the site will be unviable. This conclusion is despite the fact that the appraisal assumes an increase in floorspace on West’s Yard as a Green Belt site of 9,941 sq m over and above the existing. An increase of this magnitude is clearly not acceptable from a Development Plan policy perspective and the Economy Study and Employment Land Review has thus demonstrated beyond doubt that the site is unviable for future employment development.

However, this conclusion regarding the site being unviable is not reflected in the draft Local Plan which instead focuses on the perceived value of the yard space present at the site which is considered not to be found elsewhere in Wycombe District. This is inaccurate as it would be evident to anyone who visits the site that it is experiencing significant vacancy levels and that the units currently being marketed by Duncan Bailey Kennedy - http://www.dbk.co.uk/ – are generating no viable interest.

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 7 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

As noted in the options consultation Local Plan, Dandara Ltd are currently preparing a planning application for the redevelopment of the West’s Yard site for housing. To support an eventual planning application, a Marketing and Employment Land Statement has been prepared which demonstrates the locational, physical and market orientated constraints associated with the future viable use of the site for employment generating purposes.

This Statement is included in full alongside these representations and demonstrates that residential allocation of the site is in full accordance with adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan DPD Policy DM4 by way of demonstrating that it is no longer practical nor viable for the site to be used for employment generating purposes and that housing is an appropriate alternative land use. The site is not considered practical nor viable for continuing employment purposes for the following reasons:

- The site has insurmountable constraints in respect of vehicular access due to a height restriction of 11’9’’ on a bridge on approaches to the east and the presence of a single track, hairpin bend on approaches from the west; - The site is located in the Green Belt and AONB which has resulted in past planning applications for the improvement of existing units being refused due to the intensification of an inappropriate use in the Green Belt; - The site being located immediately opposite established residential properties which has resulted in complaints being received by Environmental Health Officers at the Council; - Wycombe District benefitting from a large stock of vacant employment sites, including sites containing units of a similar size and rental value, which results in prospective tenants being able to choose alternative locations from which to operate which do not experience the insurmountable constraints of West’s Yard; - The Marketing and Employment Land Statement being accompanied by a letter from Hawes Group and Nonfumo who explain the physical and occupational constraints associated with the site from the perspective of former tenants; - It being demonstrated that those tenants that have recently vacated have done so under voluntary surrender arrangements and that contractually, Dandara Ltd could not have forced these tenants to leave in order to promote the residential development of the site; - The above constraints resulting in a high proportion of units being vacant (58% of total floorspace) or in tenant arrears – only one unit currently has no outstanding arrears; - Current levels of debt being carried by the Applicant equate to £65,806.46; - Marketing evidence being included to demonstrate that despite a number of the units having been marketed for significant periods of time, no interest has arisen as a result of the availability of units on alternative employment sites that do not suffer the physical and occupational constraints associated with West’s Yard. The units present on the site continue to be marketed; - The previous 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ recognised that the site is only of value to the District’s employment land supply if redeveloped. Redevelopment of the site is clearly not a viable option as a result of the large number of vacant and ‘effective vacant’ units, coupled with on-going site maintenance / management costs and debt recovery costs, resulting in significant running deficits; - An independent condition survey suggests that the total cost of holistic redevelopment of the entirety of the site is estimated to be £3,659,300.00. Local agents DBK conclude that this would not be a viable option given that the value generated by higher quality units delivered following redevelopment would not recoup the investment, largely because the inherent physical constraints associated with the site would remain; - Even if funds unassociated with value generated from those existing units present on the site were available, redevelopment would remain unviable as the costs associated with such redevelopment would not be able to be recouped from future lettings because of the insurmountable physical and occupational constraints associated with the site severely limiting those potential occupiers for whom West’s Yard would be an attractive proposition.

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations West’s Yard, Saunderton Page 8 January 2014 Options Consultation Document WDLP14 00699

Conclusion – Residential Allocation of West’s Yard

These representations have demonstrated that Wycombe DC is required to deliver circa 1,300 private and affordable homes per annum to meet full, objectively assessed housing need. Due to a number of physical constraints that exist in the District, not least the extent of Green Belt and AONB coverage, Wycombe DC consider that they are unable to meet full housing need and are therefore intending to adopt a lower, mid-range housing target.

In order to consider whether any existing employment sites are capable of being redeveloped for residential purposes, the LPA has commissioned an independent Economy Study and Employment Land Review. This document was commissioned to establish whether sites were viable for continued employment generating uses thus avoiding the Local Plan protecting sites for long term employment use where there is no prospect of them being used for such purposes (NPPF para. 22).

The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review concludes that the West’s Yard site, even in the scenario of an economic upturn, would be unviable for continued employment generating purposes. This conclusion is despite significant flaws being present within the evidence base which suggests the viability of the site is even more compromised than reported in the document.

As the site is recognised by all parties as being in very poor condition and in need of redevelopment in the short to medium term, the conclusion of the draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review should be that the site be released for alternative use as it has no real prospect of being used for employment generating purposes (the site is currently at 58% vacancy by floorspace). However, the document concludes that due to the perceived lack of employment sites that benefit from yard space, the site should be retained as an employment site.

This conclusion is fundamentally flawed and in conflict with the NPPF and NPPG by protecting a site for continued employment purposes that is not viable and suffers from a range of locational, physical and occupational constraints set out in more detail in the accompanying Marketing and Employment Land Statement including in terms of access. Furthermore, the ascribed economic value of the site from a yard space / open storage perspective is in direct conflict with the Green Belt and AONB setting of the site.

We would argue that the site is allocated for residential development in acknowledgement of it no longer being viable for employment generating uses and the viability of the site being incapable of improvement due to inherent locational, physical and occupational constraints. Residential development can be compatible from a Green Belt and AONB perspective (NPPF para. 89) and would represent the efficient use of a Brownfield, previously developed site in a sustainable location which allows the Council to demonstrate that they have identified all potential sites that could deliver much needed new homes to meet full, objectively assessed need.

Notwithstanding whether the Council allocates West’s Yard for residential development or not, we remain of the view that the PBA draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review evidence base is fundamentally flawed which has misled the drafting of the Local Plan. This has resulted in the Council drafting a loaded consultation prompt question for West’s Yard and is ultimately misleading statutory and non-statutory consultation responses which will inevitably rely on the PBA evidence base when drawing conclusions regarding future development in Wycombe.

Doc Ref: Final January 2014 Wycombe DC Local Plan - Representations WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699

Dandara Ltd

Marketing and Employment Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe

April 2014 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Contents

Page

Executive Summary ...... 2

1. Introduction ...... 3

2. Site Description ...... 5

3. Strategic Market Assessment ...... 6

4. Individual Unit Assessment ...... 9

5. Site Specific Constraints ...... 2

6. Comparative Assessment ...... 8

7. Marketing ...... 16

8. Conclusion ...... 20

APPENDIX I – INDUSTRIAL FLOORSPACE AVAILABILITY

APPENDIX II – WAREHOUSE FLOORSPACE AVAILABILITY

APPENDIX III – DBK AVAILABILITY SCHEDULE

APPENDIX IV – INDIVIDUAL UNIT SCHEDULE

APPENDIX V – EXISTING SITE LAYOUT PLAN

APPENDIX VI – CONDITION SURVEY

APPENDIX VII – HAWES GROUP LETTER

APPENDIX VIII – NONFUMO LETTER

APPENDIX IX – WYCOMBE ECONOMY STUDY PROFORMA

APPENDIX X – SITE WIDE MARKETING

APPENDIX XI – INDIVIDUAL UNIT MARKETING

APPENDIX XII – WEDLAKE BELL LETTER

APPENDIX XIII – DANDARA VERSION OF PBA APPRAISAL

APPENDIX XIV – LETTER FROM FORMER UNIT 3 OCCUPIER

Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Executive Summary

This Marketing and Employment Land Statement has been prepared to accompany a planning application for the redevelopment of an existing employment site, West’s Yard in Saunderton, for new housing. It has demonstrated that the proposals are in full accordance with adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan DPD Policy DM4 by way of demonstrating that it is no longer practical nor viable for the site to be used for employment generating purposes and that housing is an appropriate alternative land use. The site is not considered practical nor viable for continuing employment purposes for the following reasons:

- The site has insurmountable constraints in respect of vehicular access; - The site is located in the Green Belt and AONB which has resulted in past planning applications for the improvement of existing units being refused; - The site being located immediately opposite established residential properties resulting in past amenity conflicts; - Wycombe District benefits from a large stock of vacant employment sites; - Evidence provided from former occupiers in respect of their experience of the physical and occupational constraints associated with the site;

- A high proportion of units being vacant or in tenant arrears – only one unit currently has no outstanding arrears; - Current levels of debt being carried by the Applicant equate to £93,232.33; - Marketing evidence being included to demonstrate no interest arising due to the availability of less constraint local commercial sites and units;

- The Council’s own 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ recognising that the site is only of value to the District’s employment land supply if redeveloped; - The Council commissioned 2014 draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review confirming that the site is unviable for continued employment use even in the context of an economic upturn; - The NPPF stating at para. 22 that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”; - An independent condition survey suggests that the total cost of holistic redevelopment of the entirety of the site is estimated to be £3,659,300.00;

- Letters being provided from former tenants and the Applicant’s solicitor to demonstrate that those businesses who have recently vacated the Estate have done so voluntarily and benefitting from security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; - Both PBA and local agents DBK conclude that holistic redevelopment would not be a viable option for West’s Yard and that the site is no longer viable for future employment generating use regardless of wider economic conditions.

April 2014 Page 2 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

1. Introduction

1.1 This Marketing and Employment Land Statement has been prepared to accompany a planning application for the redevelopment of the West’s Yard Industrial Estate in Saunderton for new housing. It demonstrates that the residential redevelopment of the site is in accordance with Policy DM5 of the adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan.

1.2 Policy DM5 of the Delivery and Site Allocations Plan refers to Scattered Business Sites and states that planning permission will be granted on these sites only where the proposed development:

(a) Falls within the B1, B2 and B8 use classes; or (b) Is for uses that deliver economic development such as employment generating sui generis uses, community facilities or main town centre uses; and (c) Where the site is not within an existing town centre, but the use is a main town centre use, the requirements of the tests set out in national policy have been met; and (d) Would not be detrimental to, and is compatible with, surrounding land uses.

1.3 Policy DM5 goes on to state that the Council will only grant planning permission for a change of use to residential if it has been clearly demonstrated that the re-use of the site for the uses specified in (a) and (b) is no longer practicable. In order to demonstrate that a site is no longer practicable for employment generating uses by reason of a lack of potential occupiers, the site must be marketed:

(a) For a sufficient period of time, and; (b) At a reasonable price for exclusively employment generating uses (stripping out any residential hope value), and; (c) Unencumbered by any sales agreement which gives priority to prospective developers, or renders the site unavailable to other prospective purchasers in the market.

1.4 This Marketing and Employment Land Statement will demonstrate that the West’s Yard Industrial Estate is not practicable for continuing B class uses nor alternative employment generating uses by virtue of site specific constraints which limit opportunities for viable use of the site for such purposes, particularly when considered against the availability of alternative premises benefitting from a better location and higher specification. It will demonstrate that the retention of the West’s Yard Industrial Estate for continuing employment generating use is no longer practicable as a result of the location of the site; site specific constraints including in respect of access; the condition of the site and the various buildings it accommodates; and the inability of the site to compete with a range of alternative employment generating sites in Wycombe District which do not experience the range of locational, operational and occupational constraints inherent to West’s Yard.

1.5 The marginal value of the site to the employment land offer of Wycombe District has previously been recognised in the 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ which concluded that the site comprised “… little more than shacks or portakabins …” and was “… only of value if redeveloped …”. This Marketing and Employment Land Statement will demonstrate that the site has deteriorated further since 2004 and that redevelopment for employment purposes is neither practical, viable nor realistic. The Statement comprises:

- Chapter 2 which will describe the West’s Yard Industrial Estate site; - Chapter 3 which will provide a strategic overview of the Wycombe District employment market; - Chapter 4 which will provide extensive information in respect of the past and present use of each of the units present on the site; - Chapter 5 which will describe the range of physical and locational constraints which adversely impact upon the continued practical use of the site for employment generating activities; - Chapter 6 which will assess the characteristics of the Wycombe District employment market and those sites which provide accommodation that would be attractive to the type of tenants that have historically taken space at West’s Yard albeit on sites that do not experience the range of

April 2014 Page 3 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

locational, physical and accessibility constraints; - Chapter 7 which will summarise the extent of marketing of vacant units, and; - Chapter 8 which will conclude the Statement.

April 2014 Page 4 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

2. Site Description

2.1 West’s Yard Industrial Estate measures circa 1.6 ha and contains 23 individual lettable units of occupation, comprising 37 individual buildings. The site is primarily used for a variety of B class light industrial and storage uses albeit a number of the units are currently vacant. The site is accessed off Slough Lane in Saunderton and lies immediately adjacent to Saunderton railway station which provides direct access to London Marylebone in 38 minutes and High Wycombe in 6 minutes. The extent of the West’s Yard Industrial Estate is shown edged red in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

2.2 As can be seen from Photograph 1 reproduced below, the site comprises a number of poor quality, prefabricated commercial and industrial buildings which are concentrated to the centre of the site and around the perimeter. Access into the site is severely constrained due to the presence of a height restricted railway bridge and a hairpin bend on approaches from the west. The site also falls within the Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) with residential accommodation lying opposite on Saunderton Vale and in the surrounding area.

Photograph 1: Aerial Photograph of Site

April 2014 Page 5 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

3. Strategic Market Assessment

3.1 The ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ published in 2004 stated that there was circa 2,679,800 sq m of B class employment floorspace present in the District including commercial offices, general industrial and storage and distribution. As reported in the January 2013 Wycombe DC Annual Monitoring Report, since 2004 the amount of B Class floorspace present in the District has reduced by circa 3.2% to 2,593,015 sq m. This represents a net loss of B Class employment floorspace of 86,785 sq m.

3.2 It can be seen that since 2004, this loss of Class B floorspace has comprised a net loss of industrial and warehousing floorspace of 93,671 sq m which was partially off-set by a gain in commercial office accommodation of 6,886 sq m. This reduction in industrial and warehousing floorspace over the past decade, experienced alongside increases in commercial office accommodation, reflects those jobs and occupations which have come to define the Wycombe District employment market as taken from the 2011/12 ONS annual population survey.

3.3 The top four employment sectors in Wycombe District are professional occupations (21%), associate professional and technological occupations (16%), managers and senior officials (14%) and administrative and secretarial occupations (14%) which increases the demand for high quality commercial office accommodation rather than more traditional manufacturing and industrial floorspace. The draft 2014 Economy Study and Employment Land Review predicts that forecasted jobs growth in Wycombe District moving forward will be concentrated in professional services, administrative and support services, computing and information services, retail and wholesale warehousing.

3.4 In order to inform this Marketing and Employment Land Statement, we have reviewed the Buckinghamshire Business First online commercial and industrial land and property database which provides up-to-date sites and premises information from across Buckinghamshire. In order to ensure a relevant search of available employment premises in Buckinghamshire, the search area was limited to Wycombe District with only those premises offering industrial, industrial / warehouse, office / industrial, office / warehouse or warehouse selected.

3.5 Interrogating the Buckinghamshire Business First online commercial and industrial land and property database has identified the following available employment land in Wycombe District defined by sector:

- Industry = 38,336 sq m - Industry / Warehouse = 55,799 sq m - Industry / Office = 59,854 sq m - Warehouse / Office = 40,334 sq m - Warehouse = 16,675 sq m.

3.6 It is however recognised that a number of available employment premises which fall within each of the individual sectors identified above will be repeated. For example, an available industrial unit may be included in all of the industry, industry / warehouse and industry / office samples depending upon the type of accommodation offered. It is therefore most accurate simply to rely on the baseline availability of 38,336 sq m of industrial floorspace (representing 67 individual premises) and 16,675 sq m of warehouse floorspace (representing 30 individual premises) in Wycombe District with Appendices 1 and 2 referring. Please note that any split figures have been excluded and therefore these floorspace figures represent the absolute minimum availability in the District. Duncan Bailey Kennedy have undertaken their own ‘market knowledge’ assessment of available industrial and warehouse premises and sites which is attached at Appendix 3 and also demonstrates high levels of availability both in Wycombe District and Aylesbury Vale.

April 2014 Page 6 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

3.7 Having regard to Table 4 of the Wycombe DC published 2009 ‘Economy Background Paper’, it is evident that the availability of industrial and warehouse premises in Wycombe District has risen significantly over the past circa 5 years. Having regard to the independent Buckinghamshire Business First database, the quantum of industrial floorspace available in 2009 equated to 2,327sq m and the quantum of warehouse floorspace 7,245 sq m. The availability of industrial and warehouse floorspace in Wycombe District has increased dramatically to 38,336 sq m and 16,675 sq m respectively, offering premises ranging from 46 sq m to 6,910 sq m for industrial and 93 sq m to 839 sq m for warehousing. This is despite there being an overall reduction in the amount of industrial and warehouse floorspace present in Wycombe District thus meaning that vacancy rates have risen dramatically.

3.8 In light of the availability of employment premises in the District, para. 4.55 of the adopted Core Strategy recognises that from 2008-18 there will be scope for the loss of circa 20 hectares of employment land. This will be distributed as 10-12 ha in High Wycombe, 3-5 ha in Princes Risborough and 4-6 ha in the remainder of the District. As explained in the Core Strategy, this net loss is as a result of site specific work which focused on a review of business land based upon quality, locational factors and market considerations. The work concluded with a recommendation that circa 20 ha of existing employment land could be lost to uses that would make a more positive contribution to the District.

3.9 To inform an assessment of existing employment land and premises in Wycombe District that could be considered for redevelopment for alternative uses, the 2004 ’Wycombe Economy Study’ identified a total of 188 sites for assessment. In order to ensure a common basis of assessment, a site appraisal proforma was developed which included 34 questions developed in order to assess the attractiveness and appropriateness of each site for continued employment use. Questions included:

- Existing use and property appraisal (including premises type, age and condition); - Access and transport issues; - Environmental issues (including amenity issues, environmental problems, image and attractiveness), and; - Identification of existing employment role and potential for change.

3.10 The West’s Yard Industrial Estate (Site ID 8) was reviewed against the assessment criteria with the conclusion that it “Provides accommodation for small businesses. Has grown organically over a number of years – some units in very poor condition – little more than shacks or portakabins. Site only of value if redeveloped”. In order to assess the potential for West’s Yard Industrial Estate to be redeveloped for alternative uses, we have updated the site appraisal proforma to the year 2013. This ensures that when assessing the practicality of West’s Yard Industrial Estate continuing to be used for employment generating purposes in the context of adopted Policy DM4 of the Delivery and Site Allocations Plan, an independent set of assessment criteria have been applied. Section 6.0 of this Statement refers.

3.11 Wycombe DC published a draft version of an updated Economy Study and Employment Land Review in January 2014 which also reiterates the poor condition of the site. As with the earlier 2004 iteration, the review concludes that “the results of our viability testing shows that continue use of the site for an employment site of industrial is unviable” and “when market conditions improve, so will viability, however there is uncertainty if viability will improve to sufficient levels to enable viable development”. Both documents therefore recognise that the West’s Yard site is only of value to the future employment offer of Wycombe District if redeveloped due to its existing poor condition with such redevelopment being unviable due to a number of locational and site specific constraints.

April 2014 Page 7 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Summary

- The amount of available industrial and warehouse premises in Wycombe District has increased dramatically over the last 5 years despite an overall reduction in land used for such purposes following planning permissions being granted for alternative uses; - The Wycombe District economy has experienced a shift away from jobs generated by the industrial and manufacturing sectors towards those in professional and managerial sectors including associated with the service sector; - The adopted Core Strategy recognises that the District has circa 20 ha more employment land than it actually needs to meet demand projected over the medium to long term; - The value of West’s Yard in contributing to the future employment and economic offer of the District is reliant on redevelopment as recognised by the Council in their published 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’; - The viability of the existing site is based upon current high vacancy levels coupled with all but one of the tenanted units being in some form of rental or service charge arrears.

April 2014 Page 8 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

4. Individual Unit Assessment

4.1 This chapter of the Marketing and Employment Land Statement will consider the specification, condition, letting history and marketability of each of the individual units which collectively comprise the West’s Yard Industrial Estate. It is accompanied by an individual schedule for each unit, including photographs, attached at Appendix 4.

4.2 There are a total of 37 individual buildings located on the West’s Yard Industrial Estate as shown on the attached existing site layout plan produced by Stuart Michael Associates at Appendix 5 (drawing ref. 4102.001). These buildings equate to 23 lettable units of occupation as shown in Table 1 below, broken down to show internal floorspace and external area including open storage and open vehicle parking.

Table 1 – Existing Accommodation Schedule

External Floorspace Unit Number Area Use (GIA sq m) (sq m)

1 194 205 Vacant (Condemned) 2 126 250 Metal Polishing and Grit Blasting 3/4 129 880 Garage Services 5 - 135 Building Contractors 6 62 60 Stove Enamelling 7 59 25 Garage Services 7a 72 30 Vacant 8 39 10 Vacant 9 68 65 Tool Manufacturer 10 50 90 Vacant 11 58 685 Vacant 12 175 170 Car Breakers 13 146 515 Vacant 14 130 180 Garage Services 15 150 1,135 Vacant 16 & 22 55 1,215 Vacant 17 364 975 Vacant 18 145 555 Car Dealer 19 85 170 Garage Services 20 & 20a 233 355 Vacant 21 216 445 Vacant 23 303 765 Vacant Open - 435 Car Storage Hardstanding Total 2,859 9,350 -

April 2014 Page 9 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

4.3 Having regard to the location, size and use of each of the 23 lettable units of occupation present on the West’s Yard Industrial Estate site, Table 2 below describes the past and present use of each unit including periods of vacancy.

Table 2 – Current and Former Tenancies

Unit Use Occupation Duration of Current Number Tenancy / Status Vacancy Start Date End Date

1 Furniture and Kitchen 29.09.1999 29.11.2006 7 years, 2 - Fitting months Vacant (Condemned) 30.11.2006 On-going 7 years, 4 Vacant months 2 Metal Polishing and 29.09.2003 On-going 10 years, 6 Occupied Grit Blasting months 3/4 Garage Services 24.06.2004 On-going 9 years, 9 Occupied months 5 Car Parts Supplier 30.09.2004 05.04.2009 4 years, 7 - months Vacant 06.04.2009 24.02.2011 1 year, 10 - months Building Contractor 25.02.2011 On-going 3 years, 1 Occupied month 6 Stove Enamelling 29.09.2002 On-going 11 years, 8 Occupied months 7 Garage Services 25.03.2003 On-going 11 years Occupied 7a Car Parts Supplier 30.09.2004 05.04.2009 8 years, 9 - months Vacant 06.04.2009 14.12.2011 2 years, 8 - months Stove, Flue and 15.12.2011 25.12.2013 2 years - Chimney Supplier Vacant 26.12.2013 On-going 3 months Vacant 8 Stove, Flue and 11.03.2005 25.12.2013 8 years, 9 - Chimney Supplier months Vacant 26.12.2013 On-going 3 months Vacant 9 Tool Manufacturer 29.11.2002 31.05.2014 11 years, 7 Occupied months 10 Car Breakers 03.03.2003 05.08.2012 9 years, 5 - months Vacant 06.08.2012 On-going 1 year, 7 Vacant months 11 Car Breakers 01.01.2001 05.08.2012 11 years, 7 - months Vacant 06.08.2012 On-going 10 months Vacant 12 Car Breakers 29.09.2002 On-going 11 years, 6 Occupied months 13 Delivery and Logistics 26.06.2003 31.10.2010 7 years, 4 - months Vacant 01.11.2010 On-going 3 years, 4 Vacant months 14 Garage Services 08.11.2002 30.04.14 11 years, 6 Occupied months 15 Plant Hire 17.02.2002 07.01.2013 10 years, 11 - months Vacant 08.01.2013 On-going 1 year, 2 Vacant months 16 & 22 Plant Hire 17.02.2002 07.01.2013 10 years, 11 -

April 2014 Page 10 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

months Vacant 08.01.2013 On-going 1 year, 2 Vacant months 17 Garage Services 25.03.2004 24.03.2009 5 years - Stove, Flue and 25.03.2009 25.12.2013 3 years, 9 - Chimney Repair months Vacant 26.12.2013 On-going 3 months Vacant 18 Car Dealer 24.06.1996 On-going 17 years, 9 Occupied months 19 Garage Services 06.11.2002 30.04.2014 11 years, 5 Occupied months 20 & Stove, Chimney and 11.03.2005 25.12.2013 8 years, 9 - 20a Flue Supplier months Vacant 26.12.2013 On-going 3 months Vacant 21 Coachworks 25.03.2003 24.03.2011 8 years - Vacant 25.03.2011 10.05.2012 1 year, 2 - months Car Parts Supplier 11.05.2012 20.05.2013 1 year - Vacant 21.05.2013 On-going 10 months Vacant 23 Plant Hire 01.02.2005 07.01.2013 7 years, 11 - months Vacant 08.01.2013 On-going 1 year, 2 Vacant months Open Car Storage 30.11.2011 30.04.14 2 years, 5 Occupied Hardsta months nding

4.4 As shown in Table 2 above, of the total 23 lettable units of occupation present on the West’s Yard Industrial Estate, a total of 11 are currently vacant. These 11 units comprise circa 1,664 sq m of floorspace representing 58% of the total lettable floorspace present on the site.

4.5 Whilst Table 2 has demonstrated that the 23 units of lettable accommodation on the site have experienced significant periods of vacancy over the past 10 years, it is also important to recognise that the viability of the Industrial Estate is also determined by the level of tenant arrears. An estate is no more viable with 100% occupancy but with all tenants in arrears than an Estate that is 100% vacant.

4.6 Of the 23 units, only one is not currently in arrears being Unit 5. All of the remaining 22 units have either not generated any tenancy income because they have experienced periods of vacancy or their tenant is in arrears in respect of either rent or service charge (see Table 3 overleaf).

April 2014 Page 11 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Table 3 – Level of Tenant Arrears

Unit Tenant Use Occupation Debt in excess of 30 days (all invoices) Start Date End Date Former Applicant Debt Comments Freeholder Since Sale Debt On Sale 1 Peter Williamson Furniture and 29/09/1999 29/11/2006 Absconded without meeting rental and Furniture Ltd kitchen fitting £4,047.77 Vacant since repair liabilities. Former freeholder wrote 2006. off outstanding £4,047.77 debt upon Vacant Vacant 30/11/2006 Date of Report vacation in 2006. 2 R Tomes Esq t/a Aaron Metail polishing 29/09/2003 Holding over £2,104 £6,006 Debt passed onto Applicant following Metal Polishing and grit blasting sale and has continued to grow. 3/4 R Smith Esq Garage services 24/06/2004 Holding over £6,758 £9,383 Debt passed onto Applicant following sale and has continued to grow. 5 A W Keen Esq t/a Bucks Car parts supplier 30/09/2004 05/04/2009 £11,437.53 Also covers units 7a. Absoncded Subaru Centre without meeting rental and repair liabilities. Former freeholder wrote off Vacant Vacant 06/04/2009 24/02/2011 outstanding £11,437.52 debt upon vacation in 2009. Richkin Ltd Building 25/02/2011 24/02/2014 £0.00 £0.00 contractors Tenant paid annually in advance.

Vacant Vacant 25/02/2014 Date of Report 6 J Walker Esq t/a All-Spray Stove enamelling 29/09/2002 Holding over £4,498 £8,750 Debt passed onto Applicant following sale and has continued to grow. 7 M J Stuart Esq t/a M J S Garage services 25/03/2003 Holding over £0.00 £3,093 Tenant has fallen into arrears following Autos the Applicant purchasing the site. 7a A W Keen Esq t/a Bucks Car parts supplier 30/09/2004 05/04/2009 Absconded without meeting rental and Subaru Centre repair liabilities.

Vacant Vacant 06/04/2009 14/12/2011 Cleared on Surrender Also covers Unit 8, 17, 20 and 20a.

J E Willis Esq t/a Stove, flue and 15/12/2011 25/12/2013 Nonfumo Flue System Ltd chimney supplier

Vacant Vacant 26/12/2013 Date of Report 8 J E Willis Esq t/a Stove, flue and 11/03/2005 25/12/2013 As per Unit 7a Nonfumo Flue Systems chimney supplier

April 2014 Page 12 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Ltd

Vacant Vacant 26/12/2013 Date of Report 9 B E Kitching Esq t/a Alba Tool manufacturer 29/11/2002 31/05/2014 £3,190 £6,115 Debt passed onto Applicant following Precision Tooling sale and has continued to grow. 10 Saunderton Salvage Car breakers 03/03/2003 05/08/2012 Also covers Unit 11. Absconded £14,948.54 Vacant since without meeting rental obligations. Vacant Vacant 06/08/2012 Date of Report 2012 Former freeholder wrote off outstanding £14,948.54 debt upon vacation in 2012. 11 Saunderton Salvage Car breakers 01/01/2001 05/08/2012 As per Unit 10.

Vacant Vacant 06/08/2012 Date of Report 12 A P Waliczek Esq t/a A P Car breaker 29/09/2002 Holding over £78.36 £4,362 Debt passed onto Applicant following W Motors sale and has continued to grow. 13 Ms S J Baxter t/a Delivery and 26/06/2003 31/10/2010 Combined Carriers logistics £0.00 Vacant since Formerly occupied on a reduced rent. 2010. Vacant Vacant 01/11/2010 Date of Report 14 J Yates Esq t/a J D Garage services 08/11/2002 30/04/2014 £7,137 £22,344 Also covers Unit 19 and car park. Vehicle Repairs Debt passed onto Applicant following sale and has continued to grow. 15 R Hawes Esq t/a Hawes Plant hire 17/02/2002 07/01/2013 £16,841 £16,841 Also covers Unit 16, 22 and 23. Plant Hire Debt passed onto Applicant following Vacant Vacant 08/01/2013 Date of Report sale. Unit now vacant. 16 & R Hawes Esq t/a Hawes Plant hire 17/02/2002 07/01/2013 22 Plant Hire As above

Vacant Vacant 08/01/2013 Date of Report 17 Pedestal Motors Garage services 25/03/2004 24/03/2009 £8,131.26 Absconded without paying arrears.

J E Willis Esq t/a Stove, flue and 25/03/2009 25/12/2012 Nonfumo Flue Systems chimney supplier Ltd

Vacant Vacant 26/12/2013 Date of Report As per Unit 7a. 18 K B Motors Car dealer 24/06/1996 Holding over £1,849.32 £1,874.51 Debt passed onto Applicant following sale and remains outstanding. 19 J Yates Esq t/a J D Garage services 06/11/2002 30/04/2014 As per Unit 14a.

April 2014 Page 13 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Vehicle Repairs 20 & J E Willis Esq t/a Stove, flue and 11/03/2005 25/12/2013 20a Nonfumo Flue Systems chimney supplier Ltd As per Unit 7a.

Vacant Vacant 26/12/2013 Date of Report 21 South Bucks Coachworks Coachworks 25/03/2003 24/03/2011 £24,759.14 Absconded without meeting rental and repair liabilities. Vacant Vacant 25/03/2011 10/05/2012

Group El Carmen Ltd Car parts supplier 11/05/2012 20/05/2013 £2,679.34 £14,465.82 Lease ended by agreement without tenant meeting rental and repair Vacant Vacant 21/05/2013 Date of Report liabilities. 23 R Hawes Esq t/a Hawes Plant hire 01/02/2005 07/01/2013 Plant Hire Unit vacant.

Vacant Vacant 08/01/2013 Date of Report Car J Yates Esq t/a J D Car storage 30/11/2011 30/04/2014 As per Unit 14. Park Vehicle Repairs

Debt Totals

Debt Carried by Former Freeholder on Date of Sale of Site in 2012 = £108,459.25 Debt Written-Off by Former Freeholder to Facilitate Sale of Site = £54,230.09 Existing Debt Carried by Applicant in 2014 = £93,232.33

April 2014 Page 14 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

4.7 Table 3 above demonstrates the unviable nature of West’s Yard as an Estate characterised by high levels of vacancy coupled with tenants who generate rental and service charge arrears. The current level of debt carried by the Applicant is £93,232.33. This level of debt can be put into perspective by the fact that the Estate could generate an absolute maximum of £85,000 of income should all 23 units be at full occupancy and with no tenants defaulting on their rent and service charge. Looking at past levels of rental and service charge arrears, it is expected that at best, the Estate will generate circa £60,000 of income. This means that the Applicant fully expects to be carrying more debt at the end of the financial year from the Estate than income generated. This is clearly not a viable position.

4.8 Based on Table 3 above, the following statements can be made in respect of the income generated by each of the units and their associated viability:

- Unit 1 has been vacant for the past 5 years and has generated no income; - Units 1, 5, 7a, 10, 11 and 13 have all experienced periods of circa 2 years when no income has been generated; - Units 3/4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 22, 19 and 21 have experienced at least 2 years of ‘effective vacancy’ where the tenant has paid less than 75% of their tenancy invoices; - Only Units 6, 7 and 18 have generated in excess of 75% of their tenancy income over the past 5 year period; - All the units with the exception of Unit 5 are currently in tenant arrears.

4.9 It can be concluded based on the above that the West’s Yard Industrial Estate:

a) experiences high rates of vacancy at 11 units or 58% of the total lettable floorspace present on the site; b) where units are let, there is a high incidence of tenants defaulting on their rent payments which has resulted in almost 74% of the floorspace currently present on the site being either vacant or ‘effective vacant’, where less than 75% of the due rent has been paid; c) when rent and service charge arrears are considered together, only one unit is currently not in arrears; d) if the Applicant had terminated the leases of those tenants who had not paid their rental invoices, as you would expect any reasonable commercial landlord to do, only one tenant would remain on the Industrial Estate.

4.10 This therefore creates a situation where the site is not viable for continuing employment use by being severely prejudiced by insufficient rental values being achieved to account for the high number of vacant units, the on-going management and maintenance of the estate and to pay the administrative costs associated with debt recovery. The poor physical quality and condition of the units is such that those tenants who are attracted to the site are ultimately more likely to default on their rental payments as a result of the marginal nature of the business and their inability to locate to alternative sites in Wycombe District that offer a high quality environment, especially for firms who are primarily client facing. The Applicant is currently due circa £93,000 of owed debt from 10 units which is unsustainable for an Estate which only contains a total of 22 units of which 11 are vacant.

4.11 It is worth noting that the Applicant could have reasonably forfeited the leases of those tenants under the terms of their leases who had fallen into single or combined rental / service charge arrears. However, the Applicant chose not to pursue this option as the intention was to redevelop the site for new housing in accordance with adopted Policy DM5 of the adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan and it was considered beneficial to retain a presence on the site, not from a commercial or income perspective, but rather to discourage anti-social behavior or trespass. It is unreasonable for the Council to assess the viability of the site based upon current occupiers who are only on the site by virtue of the Applicant not forfeiting their leases which they would have reasonably been entitled to do as landlord due to outstanding rental and service charge arrears in all cases but one.

April 2014 Page 15 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

4.12 As recognised by the Council in their 2004 published ‘Wycombe Economy Study’, the site is only of value to the supply of employment land in the District if it was redeveloped. Due to the high number of vacant units present on the site and those that are ‘effective vacant’ as a result of rental arrears, the site is clearly not generating the level of income that would be required to fund redevelopment. This absence of viability has been independently confirmed in the Wycombe DC published draft January 2014 Economy Study and Employment Land Review which concludes that “the results of our viability testing shows that continue use of the site for an employment site of industrial is unviable” and “when market conditions improve, so will viability, however there is uncertainty if viability will improve to sufficient levels to enable viable development”.

4.13 The aforementioned conclusion of the PBA published January 2014 Economy Study and Employment Land Review that West’s Yard is unviable for future employment generating uses is significant in that the Applicant has significant concerns regarding the accuracy of the evidence base underpinning the conclusion which would render the site significantly less viable than considered at present. These inaccuracies include the following, with the most significant being the misapplication of Green Belt policy and the suggestion in the PBA appraisal that significant increases in commercial floorspace and footprint could be delivered on the West’s Yard site:

Low Bridge – The Economy Study and Employment Land Review states that restricted access to the site due to the railway bridge has been rectified due to the lowering of the road. This is incorrect, with the height limit of 11’-9’’ clearly visible to anyone who has visited the site which results in a number of larger vehicles being unable to access the site.

Access - Appendix 3 of the Economy Study and Employment Land Review is incorrect in describing the access and location of the site as ‘good’ which cannot be the case given the rural location and vehicular access constraints due to the low bridge and hairpin bend to Slough Lane to the west.

Rent – The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review assumes an achievable rent of £75 per sq m yet recognises in para. 19 that the site is in a “remote location”. Whilst local agent Duncan Bailey Kennedy consider that a rent of £75 per sq m is achievable for newly developed industrial premises in Wycombe, they do not consider this would ever be achievable in Saunderton which as a very best case, could secure rents of £65 per sq m if demand existed for such premises in this location, which it does not. We would ask for comparable rural industrial sites to be provided where £75 per sq m rents have been achieved to ensure a robust and defensible evidence base.

Rent Free – Local agent Duncan Bailey Kennedy considers that a 3 month rent free period would only be an option if demand for the units was very high. In this location, they feel that in addition to the 3 month rent free period, an average effective void period of 24 months should be allowed for to reflect the rate at which the units would be let or sold. The appraisals should be updated to reflect this.

Yield – The draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review has applied a yield of 7.5% which is an extremely competitive yield even for well located premises in Wycombe. Due to likely void periods and the quality of tenant that would be attracted to West’s Yard, a yield of 9% is considered to represent the absolute best case and unless evidence can be provided to demonstrate otherwise, the appraisal should be amended.

Purchasers Cost – These have been assumed at 4.5% which is contrary to the accepted industry standard of 5.75% and the appraisal should be amended accordingly.

April 2014 Page 16 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

Professional Fees – These have been assumed at 8% which is considered to be the absolute minimum, with a figure of between 10%-12% more realistic.

Sales Costs – The sales costs have been calculated incorrectly as an agency fee of 10% on rent of £75 per sq m x 12,800 sq m gives a total of £96,000 rather than £12,000. The same calculation error has been made in respect of legal fees which should be £48,000 rather than £6,000. The appraisal should be amended accordingly.

4.14 Whilst we welcome the conclusion set out in the January 2014 draft of the PBA Economy Study and Employment Land Review that West’s Yard is unviable for future employment generating uses even in the context of a significant economic uplift, we consider that the evidence base underpinning this conclusion is flawed to the extent that the commercial viability of the site is even more compromised than suggested by PBA. We expect the final version of the Economy Study and Employment Land Review to rectify these errors to ensure that the new Wycombe DC Local Plan is informed by an accurate and robust evidence base.

4.15 We include at Appendix 13 of this Statement a version of the PBA Economy Study and Employment Land Review appraisal which has been amended by Dandara Ltd, working alongside DBK, to allow an accurate conclusion to be reached regarding the future viability of West’s Yard for employment generating purposes. It rectifies the various inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified above and demonstrates beyond doubt that West’s Yard is not financially viable for future employment generating purposes regardless of wider economic improvements. When assessing this planning application, the LPA should require PBA to update their viability assessment work for West’s Yard to allow a robust view regarding the future viability of the site to be provided to the Council in the context of para. 22 of the NPPF.

Condition Survey

4.16 This Marketing and Employment Land Statement is accompanied by a detailed Condition Survey which is attached at Appendix 6. The Condition Survey looks in detail at each of the individual units and areas located on the site and assesses their physical condition in respect of future use and occupation. The condition of all existing units and areas present on the site can broadly be broken down into the following categories:

- Beyond economic repair costing between £98,000 and £230,000 = Units 1, 9, 11, 21 and 23; - Poor condition unable to meet current building regulations with necessary refurbishment costing over £50,000 = Unit 17; - Poor condition unable to meet current building regulations with necessary refurbishment costing between £25,000 - £50,000 = Unit 2; - Poor condition unable to meet current building regulations with necessary refurbishment costing between £15,000 - £25,000 = Units 3, 4, 6, 7a, 8, 10, 18 and 19; - Usable condition but will require extensive refurbishment to realise full potential costing between £25,000 - £55,000 = Units 7, 12, 13, 14 and 20 / 20a; - Open storage and therefore not applicable = Unit 5, 15, 16 and 22.

4.17 In general, there are only 5 units currently located on the site which could continue in active use without breaching building regulations. These units are however still in generally poor repair and would require investment of between £25,000 to £55,000 per unit to allow refurbishment to realise their optimum value and potential. The majority of units present on the site are in a generally very poor state of repair, unable to meet current building regulations. In such cases, refurbishment should be undertaken as soon as possible with the majority of the units requiring investment of between £15,000 and £25,000 per unit. Six of the units present on the site are beyond reasonable economic repair and therefore require demolition and rebuild prior to being brought back into active use.

April 2014 Page 17 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

4.18 As a result of the generally poor quality of units present on the site, including a number that require either demolition and rebuild or significant refurbishment before being brought back into meaningful use, the Condition Survey goes on to consider the costs of holistic demolition, site reconfiguration and redevelopment for employment purposes. The total cost of holistic redevelopment of the entirety of the site is estimated to be £3,659,300.00 comprising:

1. Demolition of existing structures and clearing of the site; 2. Construction of new light industrial / commercial units to current building regulation standards; 3. A provisional assessment of costs to renew / resupply main services to the site (electricity / water / drainage) on the presumption that existing capacities are adequate; 4. There is no extra over provision for contingency for extraordinary measures which might be needed to clear contaminated soil from the site (e.g. from oil), and; 5. Costs indicated are for guidance only. Actual contractors’ tender costs will vary to some degree from those shown.

4.19 Aston Building Surveys, who undertook the Condition Survey, conclude that “the buildings are in various states and stages of disrepair and decay. Only very minimal and basic maintenance has been implemented over the last thirty to forty years and the site is now at a stage where it would be appropriate to demolish the existing buildings and build new structures. However, the nature of the site and the market, suggests that it might be more appropriate and economic for a change of use to residential or a mix of residential with industrial”. This conclusion is significant as the 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ recognises that the site is only of value to the District’s employment land supply if redeveloped.

4.20 To assess the viability of either holistically redeveloping the site or undertaking significant refurbishment / redevelopment of units on a plot by plot basis, Duncan Bailey Kennedy were asked to comment on rental values that could be achieved following completion and whether these would cover the investment costs over a reasonable period of time. DBK note that Section 5 of the Condition Survey states that the cost of new buildings would be in the order of £3,400,000, including fees. The costs of upgrading the infrastructure to a reasonable modern standard would be an additional £300,000 and the cost of landscaping would be £50,000. This gives a total development cost in the region of £3.66m.

4.21 DBK understands that the redeveloped units, due to the site being located in the Green Belt, would provide broadly the same floor areas as those existing, which provides a total ground floor area of 2,910.1 sq m (31,324 sq ft). Therefore the total cost against the ground floor area equates to in the region of £116.82 per sq ft. Section 6.8 of this Marketing and Employment Land Statement presents evidence of superior units at Crownfield Works, which is a much higher quality estate in terms of unit specification and location with significant physical and operational constraints only for the largest of vehicles. Units at Crownfield Works have commanded up to £6.80 per sq ft in the last three years and quoting rents are currently £10.00 per sq ft. DBK are therefore of the opinion that this estate would let for in the region of £6.50 per sq ft.

4.22 DBK are therefore of the opinion that the significant physical / operational constraints at West’s Yard would limit the number of prospective tenants for newly developed units to those that operate without heavy or large vehicles and therefore the suppressed demand would be reflected in Market Rents comparable to those achieved at Crownfield Works despite the new specification. DBK are of the opinion that significant letting voids should be allowed for due to the forecast difficulty in letting units on such a constrained site and have suggested that a minimum void period of 24 months be applied to any investment valuation.

4.23 Applying a net initial yield of 9% to the achievable rent of £6.50 per sq ft gives a value of £72.22 per sq ft after purchaser’s costs at 5.75% and as low as £62.29 per sq ft after purchaser’s costs. An

April 2014 Page 18 Dandara Ltd MarketingWDLP14 and Employment 00699 Land Statement West’s Yard, Saunderton, High Wycombe HP14

owner occupier would also expect a minimum rent free period of 3 months. These values are also the highest that we feel would be paid by owner-occupiers purchasing individual units.

4.24 Assuming that marketing can be started during the redevelopment, DBK remain of the opinion that the average letting void on completion would still be in excess of two years and therefore this figure should be discounted further and with all the above voids, rents, investment yield, purchasers costs and rent free periods, a likely investment value of £1,580,000 would be achievable if the site were redeveloped. In summary, there would be no profit to a developer and therefore the redevelopment as industrial units is not feasible even when the most optimistic scenario is adopted.

April 2014 Page 19

WDLP14 00699

5. Site Specific Constraints

5.1 This chapter of the Marketing and Employment Land Statement will consider those site specific constraints associated with West’s Yard Industrial Estate which influence the range of employment generating occupiers that could potentially relocate to the site.

Site Location

5.2 The site is accessed off Slough Lane, close to its junction with the A4010 High Wycombe to Aylesbury Road and approximately 5 miles from High Wycombe. Access to the A40 / M40 is either via Chinnor to Junction 6 at Lewknor or to Junction 5 at Stokenchurch (approximately 8 miles). The site therefore sits in a rural location which, compared with the majority of commercial and industrial sites in High Wycombe, requires the navigation of physically constrained local roads prior to gaining access to strategic transport routes.

5.3 Access to the site by larger vehicles is severely limited due to the height restriction imposed on the adjacent railway bridge which crosses Slough Lane and Bradenham Road / Wycombe Road (A4010). The railway bridge imposes a height restriction of 11’9” (3.58m) which precludes access to the site by the following types of vehicles:

- Rigid vans 7.5 to 17 tonne (gross vehicle weight); - Skip loader; - Articulated box van (3 to 6 axles); - Concrete mixer; - Excavator; - Mobile crane; - Skip lorry; - Car transporter, and; - A range of non-commercial vehicles including Pantechnicon, luxury coach and large refuse vehicles.

5.4 This is a key constraint in respect of the attractiveness of the site to commercial / industrial tenants whose operation may require larger vehicles accessing the site. Such vehicles would therefore be required to access the site via narrow country roads connecting to Slough Lane from the west. Slough Lane is a narrow road with severe bends to the west of the site entrance making maneuvering very difficult both for the vehicle drivers and for other road users / local residents.

5.5 Access to West’s Yard Industrial Estate is via a priority junction with the southern side of Slough Lane. Immediately opposite the site access, on the northern side of Slough Lane, are priority junctions with the railway station access and Saunderton Vale. Slough Lane forms a priority crossroad junction with Wycombe Road and Smalldean Lane. Signage on the entrance to Slough Lane from the junction identifies that the road is ‘Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles’ and that there is a ‘Single Track Road Ahead’.

5.6 Slough Lane is approximately 3.8 metres wide in the vicinity of the site access. To the west, the width of Slough Lane reduces to around 3 metres and the road makes an almost right angle bend. To the east of the site access, the railway bridge imposes a height restriction of 11’9” (3.58m). Formal shuttle operation under the bridge allocates priority to eastbound vehicles. Even if the site were to be redeveloped to provide higher quality accommodation, these insurmountable access constraints would remain meaning that the rental values achievable would never recoup the cost of redevelopment.

WDLP14 00699

5.7 The height restriction from the east and the road width and alignment to the west means that the site cannot be accessed by heavy goods vehicles. On this basis, the access to the site is not adequate to serve the Industrial Estate. HGVs delivering to / from the site are required to load / unload on Slough Lane, east of the bridge, and trolley goods to / from the site. None of the junctions near to the site are roundabouts or traffic signal controlled. The roads in the vicinity of the site (Slough Lane and Wycombe Road) are not traffic calmed.

Bridge Span Restricted to 11’9” (3.58 metres).

Hairpin Bend on Western Approach to the Site.

5.8 Appendix 7 includes a letter received from Hawes Group dated 17th November 2012. Hawes Group had been present at West’s Yard since 1975, before vacating to the Cressex Industrial Estate in High Wycombe in August 2011. Reiterating many of the points made above from the perspective of an actual former occupier, the various constraints associated with the site, particularly the inability to expand operationally due to constraints accruing from the Green Belt / AONB designation of the site alongside the proximity of local residents, as well as physical constraints to access, resulted in the decision being taken to relocate to ensure the firm could expand and continue to trade profitably.

5.9 Appendix 8 includes a letter received from Nonfumo Flue Systems Ltd dated 4th October 2013. Nonfumo were one of the longest running tenants at West’s Yard and occupied five of the units located on the site. It was a long term aspiration of Nonfumo to occupy a single unit that could be extended in the future as the business grew. This was not possible on West’s Yard due to the Green Belt designation of the site and therefore as an interim measure, Nonfumo temporarily occupied other units on the Estate that struggled to be let to incoming firms having fallen vacant and thus were available on flexible terms and at a reduced rent. Nonfumo have now found alternative premises at Stokenchurch that do not suffer from the access constraints, poor quality environment and Green Belt constraints that befall West’s Yard.

5.10 It is of relevance to note that both Hawes Group and Nonfumo Flue Systems Ltd made the decision

WDLP14 00699

to vacate West’s Yard to alternative, less constrained premises elsewhere despite a significant increase in the rent and service charges being levied at their alternative premises.

5.11 It is important for the Applicant to reiterate that all tenants that have vacated the site since Dandara Ltd took occupation have done so of their own accord due to those physical, occupational and market orientated constraints rendering their respective businesses unviable on West’s Yard. To demonstrate this, Appendix 12 of this Statement includes a letter from the Applicant’s Solicitor, Wedlake Bell, who have confirmed both Non Fumo Flue Systems Ltd and Hawes Plant and Tool Hire Limited, as the two principal occupiers of the Estate, both entered into voluntary surrender agreements and vacated their properties accordingly.

5.12 The Applicant has also confirmed that most recently the tenants of Units 2, 3 & 4, 6, 7, and 14 & 19 have voluntarily surrendered their leases. This is despite all aforementioned tenants benefitting from security of tenure under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 which would have entitled them to a new lease should they have requested one. All of the above tenants were in significant rent arrears and did not wish to commit to another term secured under a new lease as they did not consider that the viability of their business would improve whilst they remained on West’s Yard due to its evident locational, occupational and market orientated constraints. An example letter is included at Appendix 14, received from the former occupier of Unit 3 being L&R Car Sales and Automotive Repairs.

5.13 The site occupies a rural location and is relatively isolated from markets, customers and associated firms. Whilst the distances in relative terms are manageable, averaging 8-10 minutes to reach notable centres of population, the access constraints and country roads result in longer than average and more complex journeys compared with similar commercial / industrial sites located within and on the edge of established settlements which provide a ready-made customer base.

Table 4 – Distance to Principal Population Centres

Town Population Miles from Site Princes 7,978 4.2 Risborough High Wycombe 92,300 5.0 Stokenchurch 4,037 6.2 Marlow 14,004 8.9 Aylesbury 56,392 11.7 Oxford 153,900 22.9

Residential Amenity

5.14 The West’s Yard Industrial Estate site is located immediately opposite residential dwellings located off Saunderton Vale at a distance of little more than 20 metres across Slough Lane. We have obtained records from Wycombe District Council’s EHO, David Abiorwerth who responded on 23rd April 2013 as follows:

1997

August – residential complaint of fumes but no source identified and no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

November - residential complaint of odour from wood burner at Unit 1, monitoring revealed problem but advice given on how to avoid future problems and complaint ceased.

1998

WDLP14 00699

March – residential complaint of odour from wood burner but no source identified and no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

1999

September – residential complaint of regular bonfires on Saturday mornings at Unit 21, advice given on how to avoid future problems and complaint ceased.

2000

January – commercial complaint of black smoke from wood burner at Unit 21, monitoring did not reveal any problem and case closed.

March - commercial complaint of black smoke from wood burner at Unit 21, monitoring did not reveal any problem and case closed.

April – commercial complaint of black smoke from waste oil burner at Unit 14, monitoring did not reveal any problem and case closed.

May - residential complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 1, advice given on how to avoid future problems and complaint ceased.

June - commercial complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 11, advice given on how to avoid future problems and complaint ceased.

June - residential complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 1, no evidence of nuisance found and complaint ceased.

June - residential complaint of regular bonfires from unidentified unit, no evidence of nuisance found and complaint ceased.

August - commercial complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 21, no evidence of nuisance found and complaint ceased.

2001

July - residential complaint of regular bonfires from unidentified unit but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

October - residential complaint of regular bonfires from unidentified unit but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

2003

June – residential complaint of early morning noise from loading of lorries that are too large to fit under railway bridge and access site, advice given on how to avoid future problems & complaint ceased.

August - residential complaint of odour from wood burner at Unit 1 but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

September - residential complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 1 but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

WDLP14 00699

2004

July - residential complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 1 but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

September - residential complaint of regular bonfires from unidentified unit but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

2005

April - residential complaint of regular bonfires from unidentified unit but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

July - residential complaint of regular bonfires from Unit 1 but no further evidence submitted to substantiate complaint.

5.15 The EHO records demonstrate that since 1997 there have been 21 complaints received from adjacent residential occupiers in respect of activities undertaken on the West’s Yard Industrial Estate. This includes evidence of the unloading of lorries too large to fit under the bridge and the transfer of their goods into the Estate. It is noted that there have been no complaints since 2005 but this could be as a result of the Council failing to stop repeated offences including bonfires or as a result of the gradual declining use of the site. What it does however demonstrate is the likelihood of complaints due to incompatibility with adjacent residential properties if the use of the site were to intensify or if alternative tenants were to take occupation.

Green Belt and AONB

5.16 West’s Yard Industrial Estate is designated on the extant Local Plan Proposals Map as falling within the Green Belt and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The sensitivity of the setting of the site has severely restricted the ability of existing tenants to extend or improve their units or the operator of the Estate to improve the facilities located on the site. This has contributed to the poor overall quality of the site and its units and to increased rates of vacancy and rental arrears as previously discussed. Over the past 15 years, 5 planning applications have been submitted on the site of which four have been refused, one withdrawn and nil approved. This includes:

Planning Ref. 98/05571/FUL - Proposal to erect a single storey extension to an existing storage building which was refused as a result of consolidating an inappropriate use and development in the Green Belt;

Planning Ref. 98/05945/FUL – Proposal to erect a replacement single storey building on the site in place of an existing, dilapidated unit which was refused as a result of consolidating an inappropriate use and development in the Green Belt;

Planning Ref. 03/05227 – Proposal to erect x 6 pole-mounted twin street lights onto the Estate to improve the quality of tenant facilities which was refused due to increased luminance and light pollution creating an urban feature within a rural setting;

Planning Ref. 09/06342/FUL - Proposal to erect a first floor extension onto an existing building measuring 2 metres which was refused as a result of consolidating an inappropriate use and development in the Green Belt.

Summary

- West’s Yard suffers from a high rate of vacant units and the majority of tenants are in arrears;

WDLP14 00699

- The site is not viable because the income it generates from rent is not sufficient to cover the costs associated with the high number of vacant units and those in arrears with the on-going maintenance of the site including legal fees required to secure payment; - The existing units present on the site have been unable to expand or improve due to planning restrictions associated with the Green Belt and AONB designation of the site; - The estate is not compatible with immediately adjacent residential properties from which complaints have historically been received; - Insurmountable, severe access restrictions limit the type of occupiers who can locate onto the site; - The Council published 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ recognises that the value of the site to the employment offer of the District is dependent upon wholesale redevelopment; - The site is not currently viable due to the high number of vacant and in-arrear units present not generating required rental levels and the insurmountable constraints of a site located in the Green Belt / AONB; in close proximity to residential properties and suffering from severe access limitations; meaning that even if redeveloped, the site would not be attractive to potential tenants regardless of the actual quality and specification of the units. The letters from Hawes Group and Nonfumo make this point clearly from an occupational perspective.

WDLP14 00699

6. Comparative Assessment

6.1 This part of the Marketing and Employment Land Statement will consider the West’s Yard Industrial Estate site against alternative employment sites within Wycombe District. It will demonstrate that the loss of the West’s Yard site for new housing would not adversely affect the overall offer of the Wycombe employment market due to the presence of a variety of higher quality, better located employment sites and would not impact upon the ability of light industrial / warehouse tenants to find premises in the District as a result of the significant availability of such units.

6.2 The following is a summary produced by local agents Duncan Bailey Kennedy assessing the availability of B1, B2 and B8 units between 1,000 and 11,000 sq ft in the core local areas of High Wycombe and Aylesbury as well as their surrounding areas:

Location Area available (sq ft) Aylesbury and surroundings 1,926,841 High Wycombe and surroundings 1,056,804 Total 2,983,645

Location Number of units available Aylesbury 88 Areas surrounding Aylesbury 48 High Wycombe 102 Areas surrounding High Wycombe 34 Total No. of units in all areas 272 Source: DBK March 2014

6.3 A full list of accommodation available in this size range for the locations covered is included at Appendix 3.

6.4 As previously mentioned, interrogating the Buckinghamshire Business First online commercial and industrial land and property database identified the following available employment land in Wycombe District defined by sector, comprising 101 available units in High Wycombe and a further 36 in the areas surrounding High Wycombe:

- Industry = 38,336 sq m - Industry / Warehouse = 55,799 sq m - Industry / Office = 59,854 sq m - Warehouse / Office = 40,334 sq m - Warehouse = 16,675 sq m. 6.5 In order to allow a comparative assessment to be undertaken, we have completed two specific workstreams. Firstly, as part of the Wycombe Economy Study undertaken by Atkins in 2004, each employment site located within Wycombe District was independently assessed using a standard proforma which has been updated / redrafted by PBA as part of their 2014 Economy Study and Employment Land Review Exercise. This included the West’s Yard site with the independent conclusion being ‘provides accommodation for small businesses – has grown organically over a number of years – some units in very poor condition – little more than shacks or portakabins – site only of value if redeveloped’.

6.6 There are six specific scores allocated for each site based upon a series of assessment criteria

WDLP14 00699

devised by Atkins. An updated 2013 proforma for West’s Yard is attached at Appendix 9, with the key scores as follows:

Unit Condition – Very poor (1 mark out of 5 available) based on the guidance note for question Q17 identifying such sites as experiencing ‘significant dilapidation of buildings. Possible structural problems. Limited building lifespan without major repairs / renovation’ as can be seen from the photographs included in Appendix 4 of this Statement;

Highways Score - Very poor (1 mark out of 5 available) based on the guidance note for question Q25 identifying such sites as experiencing ‘highways / access issues hamper the existing operation of the site and / or could restrict future options for change’ especially in respect of the height restricted bridge to the east and hairpin bend to the west;

Public Transport Accessibility – Very poor (1 mark out of 5) and whilst the site has good access to Saunderton railway station, this is of little benefit to the type of current and past occupiers of the site who generally rely on private vehicles to access the site;

Existing Environment and Amenity – Poor (2 marks out of 5) based on the guidance note for question Q29 identifying such sites as experiencing ‘combination of on-site development constraints and conflicts with adjacent land uses’ especially evident in the number of planning refusals issued for the improvement of the existing site due to Green Belt conflicts alongside a history of complaints from adjacent residential properties;

Existing Occupier Environment – Very poor (1 mark out of 5) based on the guidance note for question Q32 identifying such sites as experiencing ‘issues representing a significant constraint which may prove difficult to overcome’ including quality of accommodation, operational constraints, absence of shared facilities and access limitations which cumulatively impact upon the attractiveness and marketability of the site;

Strategic Marketability – Very poor (1 mark out of 5) based on the guidance note for question Q34 identifying such sites as experiencing ‘issues relating to market attractiveness likely to represent a significant barrier to sustaining long term employment use’.

6.7 The outcome of the assessment undertaken by Atkins in 2004 concluded that unless redeveloped, the site had no future employment value due to the very poor condition of the buildings present on the site. Since this time, our updated 2013 appraisal attached at Appendix 9 has demonstrated that the buildings have further deteriorated and vacancy rates have increased substantially as a result of the economic downturn coupled with the locational, operational and occupational constraints associated with the site.

6.8 The second workstream to assess the comparative value of the West’s Yard site to the employment market in Wycombe District has been undertaken by a specialist local agent, Duncan Bailey Kennedy. They have assessed West’s Yard against other employment sites in the District, including similar designated ‘Scattered Employment Sites’. They have applied a similar scoring system as the Wycombe Economy Study (1 ‘very poor’ through to 5 ‘very good) considering quality of units, access, location and concentration of interrelated occupiers.

6.9 Table 5 provides an assessment of the core locations in Wycombe District for light industrial / storage occupiers. West’s Yard is included so that a comparison can be drawn between the estate and its alternatives. The estates are ordered from those that generally provide the poorest quality of unit to those providing the highest, most recent specification accommodation.

WDLP14 00699

Table 5: Comparative Employment Site Assessment

Estate Quality Available Units Access Location Concentrations Scattered Total of Units of Interrelated Employme Occupiers nt Site Cressex 4 £3.00 - £15.00 per 5 5 5 NO 19 Industrial sq ft. Lease terms Estate vary. Rose Business 4 Circa £.50 per sq ft 5 5 4 YES 18 Estate, Marlow – standard lease Bottom terms. Availability. Sands 4 £3.00 - £12.00 per 5 4 5 NO 18 Industrial sq ft. Standard FRI Estate lease terms C R Bates 4 £6.00 - £9.00 per 5 5 3 YES 17 Estate. sq ft. Standard FRI Stokenchurch lease terms. No current availability. High 5 Brand new Units. 4 4 3 NO 16 Wycombe £11.75 per sq ft. Business Park, Standard FRI lease London Road terms. Griffin 4 £6.00 - £9.00 per 4 4 4 NO 16 Industrial Mall, sq ft. Standard FRI Griffin Lane lease terms. Summerleys 4 £8.00 - £10.00 per 4 4 3 NO 15 Road, Princes sq ft. Standard FRI Risborough lease terms Wye Industrial 3 Circa £10 per sq ft 3 4 5 NO 15 Estate, Standard FRI lease London Road terms Marlborough 3 Unit available To 4 4 3 NO 14 Trading Let. £10.00 per sq Estate, West ft. Wycombe Road North’s Estate, 3 Circa £8.50 per sq 4 3 4 YES 14 Old Oxford ft. Standard FRI Road, lease terms. Only Piddington freehold currently available Aylesbury Bus 3 £5.00 - £7.00 per 3 3 4 NO 13 Centre, sq ft. Standard FRI Chamberlain lease terms Road

Ministry Wharf, 4 £7.00 - £12.00 per 2 3 3 YES 12 Wycombe sq ft. Standard FRI Road lease terms. No current availability. Crownfields, 3 £5.25 per sq ft. 3 3 3 YES 12 Wycombe Standard FRI lease Road terms Commercial 2 Rents circa £3.00 3 3 4 NO 12 Square, Leigh per sq ft – short Street term flexible leases available. Binders Yard, 2 £8.50 per sq ft. 3 3 4 YES 12

WDLP14 00699

Cryers Hill Flexible lease terms. No current availability. Ruskin Works, 2 £2.50 per sq ft. 4 3 3 NO 12 Oakridge Flexible lease Road terms. Hopkins Yard, 3 £5.95 per sq ft. 3 2 3 YES 11 Valley Rd, Flexible lease Hughenden terms Wycombe 3 Circa £10.00 per sq 2 3 2 NO 10 Industrial Mall, ft. Standard FRI West End lease terms. No Street current availability. Fryers Works, 1 £2.00-5.00 per sq ft 3 2 4 NO 10 Abercromby (inclusive of rates). Avenue Flexible lease terms Le Flaive, 2 £9.95 per sq ft. 2 2 3 YES 9 Naphill Standard FRI lease terms but restrictions on operating times Berber 3 £12.00 per sq ft. 2 2 2 NO 9 Business Standard FRI lease Centre, terms Kitchener Road The Former 3 Freehold only 2 2 0 NO 7 Hillside Centre, Upper Green Street 280 Main 2 £10.00 per sq ft. 2 2 1 YES 7 Road, Walters Standard FRI lease Ash terms West Yard, 1 £1.00 - £4.95 per 2 1 2 YES 6 Slough Lane sq ft. Flexible lease terms

6.10 The assessment undertaken by Duncan Bailey Kennedy has demonstrated that the West’s Yard site is the least attractive, available employment site in Wycombe District when considered against comparable light industrial / storage complexes. This is principally due to the poor quality of the units, access limitations and location from a market perspective. The rental levels achieved at West’s Yard are the lowest in the District, impacting upon viability and demonstrating the poor quality of the accommodation on offer, the physical and occupational constraints of the site and its isolated location away from any major urban centres.

6.11 As can be seen from Table 5 above, under the ‘available units’ column, a number of the alternative employment sites considered in the context of this Statement have vacant units available on competitive rents. Duncan Bailey Kennedy have thus provided an independent assessment for a number of alternative employment sites within Wycombe District that they consider would be more attractive to prospective tenants from a marketability perspective. The main competing designated ‘Scattered Employment Sites’ to West’s Yard includes the following:

Crownfield Works, Saunderton – Located close to West’s Yard within Saunderton on the Wycombe Road (A4010). Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 at Crownfield Industrial Estate have been let in the last four years on flexible terms ranging from £5.00 to £6.80 per sq ft for approximately 1,100 sq ft units. Whilst these rents are higher than those at West’s Yard, they illustrate that far superior accommodation has

WDLP14 00699

been let for only slightly higher rents. Crownfield Industrial Estate is directly accessed off the A4010 Wycombe Road and has no significant restrictions to most vehicles on entry. The units are well maintained and offer clear parking areas and reasonable loading access.

Ministry Wharf, Saunderton – Another commercial site which is located close to West’s Yard Estate on the Wycombe Road. Ministry Wharf Estate offers good business units with ample car parking. The Estate has no current availability.

Binders Yards, Cryers Hill – Located on the Cryers Hill between Great Kingshill and High Wycombe on the Cryers Hill Road (A4128), Binders Yard offers a range of open storage, workshop and office accommodation. The Estate has no current availability.

North Estates, Piddington – This Estate is based in Piddington on the Oxford Road (A40) between Stokenchurch and West Wycombe. Currently one of the units is under offer on a freehold sale basis.

Le Flaive, Naphill – Located approximately 5.5 miles east of Saunderton Village, the Estate provides a mix of superior quality workshop and office accommodation. The Estate has a constraint on its operating times but would be of interest to businesses only wishing to operate during normal office hours. Units 3 and 4 have recently been let.

280 Main Road, Walters Ash – Walters Ash is a village situated between Naphill and Lacey Green, 4.5 miles south east of Saunderton. It has a large RAF presence and is easily accessible to High Wycombe via the Main Road. No units are currently available.

Hopkins Yard, Hughenden – Hopkins Yard is located just under 3 miles from High Wycombe and 6.5 miles from Saunderton. Users in this area include industrial, office, residential and limited retail provision. Hopkins Yard provides a range of industrial workshop units, including those suited for motor trade, at rents from £5.95 per sq ft.

C R Bates, Wycombe Road, Stokenchurch – situated just off Junction 5 of the M40, C R Bates has no current availability of units. The accommodation on the Estate is of slightly superior quality but the good access to the M40 is the major advantage of this location.

Rose Business Estate, Marlow Bottom – a business estate located a short distance from the M40 Motorway (Junction 4), there are currently 5 units available from 201 sq ft – 900 sq ft individually. Rents start from approximately £8.50 per sq ft.

6.12 Duncan Bailey Kennedy has also considered a number of other employment sites which, although not designated ‘Scattered Employment Sites’, nevertheless contain a number of industrial units that may be preferred over West’s Yard by prospective tenants:

Cressex Business Park – A number of units within the business park are available on flexible lease terms. Rents start from as little as £3.00 per sq ft for poorer quality units in less accessible parts of the Estate to in excess of £15.00 per sq ft for well-located high specification units. Quoting rents are very much dependent on the location and quality of units and yard accommodation. Overall, the location of the business park provides very good links to the motorway network and unrestricted access. A previous tenant of West’s Yard, namely Hawes Plant Hire, has previously moved to Cressex due to the quality of yard and unit, accessibility and location. The ability of the firm to grow their business through improvements to their premises as well as providing an on-site recycling facility were also considerations in the move. These major advantages often mean that prospective tenants consider Cressex to be better value to their business despite increased rents.

Lincoln Business Park, Lincoln Road, Cressex, High Wycombe - located at the end of Lincoln Road and comprises 16 business / industrial units. The Estate has easy access to the M40 via

WDLP14 00699

Junction 4 and the A404 which leads to the M4 and Maidenhead. There are currently two units available to let ranging from 2,482 – 2,681 sq ft.

Crownfield Works, Saunderton – This Estate has three units available. The advantages of Crownfield Works are discussed above.

Fryers Works, Abercromby Avenue, High Wycombe – This Estate is some four miles from West’s Yard between the Sands Industrial Area and High Wycombe. Together with Ruskin Works, Fryers Works is the closet alternative site that prospective tenants may look to instead of West’s Yard as the quality of units is basic and rents are comparable. Lease terms here are flexible and units will appeal to start-up companies or those not requiring more highly specified accommodation. The Estate has units between 1,074 sq ft and 13,099 sq ft available at between £2.95 and £3.95 per sq ft. Fryers works is located in a mixed-use area with slight access constraints due to on-road parking on Abercrombie Avenue but superior access compared to West’s Yard.

Ruskin Works, Oakridge Road, High Wycombe – This site is just over four miles from West’s Yard accessed off the A40 West Wycombe Road. It provides similar specification units to those at Fryers Works and better access due to no constraints for most vehicles. 1,208 sq ft to 5,280 sq ft of accommodation is available on short, flexible leases at rents quoted between £2.50 and £3.95 per sq ft.

As well as a number of units on Cressex Business Park, for businesses able to afford higher rents in order to lease superior premises in better locations with no access constraints, there are a large number of alternative Estates, including the following:

Le Flaive, Naphill – As discussed above, has superior specification units available for businesses wishing to operate during normal office hours.

Summerleys Road, Princes Risborough - has a number of units to let, ranging from budget units to more expensive modern specification accommodation.

Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe – similar to Cressex Business Park, Sands offers a wide range of units at different size ranges with rents as low as £3 per sq ft for much larger units but higher rents for units of a similar size to those at West’s Yard due to their better specification and access. Sands Industrial Estate is within 2.5 miles of the M40 at Junction 4.

High Wycombe Business Park, High Wycombe – Brand new trade counter industrial units, available both on leasehold and freehold basis. These units are well located next to Wycombe Marsh Retail Park and accessible to large vehicles. Rents start from £11.95 per sq ft and range from 2,271 - 4,672 sq ft.

Yard Space

6.13 Although only in draft form, Wycombe DC has accorded significant weight to the conclusion set out in the January 2014 PBA published ‘Economy Study & Employment Land Review’ that West’s Yard is of value to the future employment land offer of the District because “… certain types of business do need yard space but this is not available elsewhere in the District”.

6.14 In the same report, PBA conclude that “the results of our viability testing shows that continued use of the site for an employment site of industrial is unviable”, this is despite our serious reservations that the methodology underpinning this viability assessment is fundamentally flawed and that in reality, the site is significantly less viable than PBA conclude. Despite the fact that the NPPF is very clear in advising Local Authorities at para. 22 that “… planning policies should avoid the long term protection

WDLP14 00699

of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”, PBA still recommend that the site is retained for employment uses due to the offer of yard space.

6.15 We consider that this conclusion is also fundamentally flawed on the basis that (a) the site is not currently viable for any form of employment generating use including industrial / warehouse type yard space (b) there has been no evidence of demand from businesses that require yard space despite the marketing of units on the site (c) there are inherent physical and locational constraints associated with the site which inhibit its use by yard type occupiers who require access for larger vehicles and (d) there are numerous vacant sites in Wycombe DC with yard space which are currently available. Details of these available units are included at Appendices 1-3 and summarised as follows:

- Rear Unit, 19 Lincoln Road, Cressex Business Park which is being marketed by Duncan Bailey Kennedy at a rental value of £15,863 per annum and provides a 248 sq m workshop / warehouse unit with associated enclosed yard and forecourt;

- Woodlands Farm, Burnham Road which is being marketed by Philip Marsh Collins Deung at a rental value of £10 per sq ft for a 1,453 sq ft industrial unit with large external yard area;

- Unit 1a, Halifax Road, Cressex Business Park which is being marketed jointly by Duncan Bailey Kennedy and Jones Lang LaSalle for sale or to let and provides 644 sq m of industrial / warehouse floorspace and a sizable secure external yard area;

- Fryers Works, Abercromby Avenue, High Wycombe which is being marketed jointly by Duncan Bailey Kennedy and is available to let at £10,000 per annum for the use of 450 sq m of open hard standing yard space;

- Lesters Yard, Lane End Road, Sands which is being marketed by Duncan Bailey Kennedy for sale at £139,950 plus VAT for 239 sq m of storage / portakabin space servicing a large gated open yard. The site has recently been reduced in price due to lack of interest.

6.16 The above sites are not intended to represent an exhaustive list of all available yard type properties in Wycombe District but rather to demonstrate that there are a variety of sites available for firms whose business relies on the availability of open yard space. This includes a wide range of available sites including those which cost less than £10,000 per annum to occupy, those that are available for purchase and those that represent a design and build rental or freehold opportunity. This Marketing and Employment Land Statement has therefore demonstrated that in addition to PBA concluding that West’s Yard is not viable for commercial purposes, similar premises and sites comprising industrial / warehouse floorspace with associated external yard areas, are available to rent and purchase under a variety of terms in the local area.

6.17 Furthermore, we would query whether unfettered use of external space for the storage of goods would be allowable having regard to the existing lawful use of the site and the impact that intensified open storage would have upon the sensitive Green Belt and AONB setting of the site.

Summary

- There are a significant number of comparable B Class units available in Wycombe District that do not suffer from the range of physical and occupational constraints applicable to West’s Yard whether in respect of access, due to the designation of the site as Green Belt / AONB or as a result of conflicts with adjacent land uses;

WDLP14 00699

- There are a number of available sites that provide units of a comparable size and rental value to West’s Yard, which would be attractive to the type of occupiers who have historically located to West’s Yard; - Because West’s Yard suffers from a number of insurmountable physical and occupational constraints, the only way in which the units can compete with other available sites in the District is to offer unrepresentatively low rents (as low as £1 per sq ft). Going back to the conclusion of the 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’, West’s Yard is never going to be of value to the employment land offer of the District because of the fact that its physical and occupational constraints will never allow sufficient rents to be generated that would allow for viable redevelopment to take place. No owner will spend speculative sums on redevelopment in the knowledge that the physical and occupational constraints that will remain – access, planning designations, adjacent residents – will continue to severely restrict the type and range of occupiers that could locate to the site and thus associated rental values achievable; - There are a variety of available alternative sites that offer external open yard space in locations which do not fall within the Green Belt or AONB where open storage can have a severe detrimental impact upon openness and visual quality.

WDLP14 00699

7. Marketing

7.1 Duncan Bailey Kennedy has been involved with the marketing of units on the West’s Yard Industrial Estate for over 15 years and are a respected and experienced local commercial agent - http://www.dbk.co.uk/. They have provided the following information in respect of the marketing of the units as well as a professional assessment of the principal reasons why there are significant periods of vacancy experienced between lettings and the general absence of interest in the units despite their being offered on flexible terms and a competitive rent.

Site Wide Marketing

7.2 Duncan Bailey Kennedy was instructed by the Trustees of F West (deceased) to market the entirety of the West’s Yard site in June 2011. As can be seen attached at Appendix 10, the site was marketed by DBK to local investors / developers as well as an advert placed in the Estates Gazette. DBK has confirmed that circa 50 enquiries were received regarding the site, with marketing particulars provided to all those who expressed an interest. Stephen Bailey-Kennedy of DBK confirmed to Dandara in a letter dated 29th January 2014 that no interest was received from any potential commercial owner occupier. All interest was received from developers with five parties submitting final best bid offers.

7.3 The final bids received were as follows:

- Camden Hill at £1.1 million; - Dunmore at £1.2 million; - W E Black Ltd at £1.51 million; - Dandara Group Ltd at £1.535 million; - Square Bay (Property) Ltd at £1.55 million.

7.4 As can be seen from the original marketing particulars attached at Appendix 10, DBK reported the current income generated by the site as circa £130,000 per annum and thus offers were sought in excess of £1.5 million based on an initial yield of between 8.5-9%. Please note that as has been explained elsewhere in this Marketing and Employment Land Statement, this level of annual income is calculated on the basis of all tenants meeting their rental and service charge obligations which we know is not the case. DBK therefore valued the site at £1.5 million based on notional commercial value.

7.5 This is an important consideration as it shows that the Dandara offer at £1.535 million was in line with commercial valuations and that Dandara did not outbid potential commercial owner occupiers due to the application of residential hope value. This demonstrates full accordance with Criteria 3(b) of Policy DM5 of the adopted Delivery and Site Allocations DPD which requires the site to be marketed without residential hope value. DBK has also confirmed that none of the interested parties were intending to obtain the site for commercial development or commercial investment purposes.

7.6 What is therefore clear from the above site-wide marketing was that:

(a) The entirety of the site was fully and widely marked by DBK in June 2011; (b) The site was valued at £1.5 million by DBK; (c) No interest was received from potential commercial owner occupiers; (d) All interest was received from parties looking to redevelop the site rather than to obtain an income from the existing tenanted units; (e) Bids were received from only 5 parties; (f) It is known that all 5 parties were interested in the site for residential development purposes; (g) The successful Dandara Ltd bid being marginally in excess of the asking price which suggests that any potential commercial interest would not have been outbid due to residential hope value.

WDLP14 00699

Marketing of Individual Units

7.7 When considering the letability of each unit, Duncan Bailey Kennedy has had regard to their age, specification, layout and location on the Estate. All vacant units are currently being marketed, with marketing particulars included at Appendix 11 of this Statement for the longest standing Units 10 and 11 and Unit 13:

Units 10 & 11 – These units have been marketed by DBK since 2012. These Units were previously used as a car breakers, salvage and recycling depot prior to the tenant being declared bankrupt. The unit comprises approximately 485 sq ft of workshop / office accommodation and in the region of 8,342 sq ft of associated hardstanding previously used for open storage and as a processing yard. The rent quoted in marketing has been £8,100 per annum which could equate to in the region of £2.95 per sq ft on the workshop / offices and £0.80 per sq ft on the yard. The Agents have been willing to recommend lettings significantly below the rental level quoted but to date have received no acceptable offers. It is the Agent’s opinion that the poor accessibility of the site is restricting interest from ‘heavier’ use tenants that would otherwise desire a yard of this nature.

Unit 13 – This unit has been on the market to let since it was refurbished in 2011. The refurbishment cost totalled £10,550 + Vat and included new flooring to the ground floor entrance lobby, new carpet to upstairs landing and decoration throughout. The unit comprises light industrial / storage accommodation on the ground floor and offices or light storage on the first floor. The building totals 1,615 sq ft and has the benefit of approximately 5,545 sq ft of yard. The quoting rent that has been sought for the unit is £18,000 per annum equating to in the region of £8.40 per sq ft on the building and £0.80 per sq ft on the yard. Although there has been interest for the yard only, there has been no serious interest for the building. The Agent is concerned that the poor location at the top of the Estate coupled with the less desirable surroundings for an office-heavy building may be restricting interest.

7.8 In addition to those vacant units currently on the market, Unit 17, Plot 5, Unit 21 and Unit 21 have also been marketed in the last five years:

Unit 17 – Marketing commenced in August 2008 when Pedestal Motors expressed an interest to vacate. The GIA measured for letting purposes was 2,895 sq ft of ground floor workshop accommodation and 377 sq ft first floor offices. The unit benefitted from a 560 sq ft valeting bay. The unit was offered on flexible terms and at a quoting rent was £25,000 per annum. Depending on analysis, the quoting rent equated to an average of £7.50 per sq ft on the internal accommodation and £0.80 per sq ft on the valeting bay. A subsequent letting was agreed after around 6 months with a new lease to an existing tenant J E Willis Esq t/a Nonfumo Flue Systems Ltd commencing on 25th March 2009. The rent agreed totalled £20,500 per annum, reflecting around £6.15 per sq ft on the internal accommodation and £0.80 per sq ft on the valeting bay. DBK are of the view that the unit only let because Nonfumo Flue Systems Ltd were unable to extend or improve their existing premises on the Estate due to the Green Belt setting. As an interim arrangement, whilst they secured alternative premises elsewhere which they have now done, they took advantage of a lack of interest in the unit to secure a short term letting for £1.35 per sq ft less than the asking price. Unit 17 is now vacant as Nonfumo have found their new permanent premises as per the letter attached at Appendix 8.

Plot 5 - Plot 5 is an open storage compound measured as having a gross area totalling 1,500 sq ft. Marketing was commenced in April 2010 quoting £2,600 per annum, equating to around £1.75 per sq ft. A tenancy was only agreed once the decision was made to upgrade the security fence around the compound. The 2-year letting to Building contractors, Richkin Ltd, commenced on 25th February 2011 at £2,400 per annum, equating to £1.60 per sq ft. Their lease will expire in 2014 and they have

WDLP14 00699

already confirmed in writing their intention to vacate.

Unit 21 – the marketing of the unit started in August 2011 after South Bucks Coachworks absconded in March 2011 and the landlord decided to take back the lease. For letting purposes, the GIA of the single storey workshop was measured as 1,830 sq ft and the demise incorporated 2,002 sq ft of yard to the rear together with 8 car park spaces to the front. The marketing particulars quoted a rent of £13,000 per annum, equating to £6.23 per sq ft assuming £0.80 per sq ft on the yard and the unit was let ‘as seen’ by Grupo El Carmen Ltd in May 2012 at £11,500 per annum, equating to £5.32 per sq ft on the unit and £0.80 per sq ft on the yard. Within a few months the tenant absconded with no further contact. The landlord agreed to release the tenant from their obligations in March 2013 despite the unit being ‘let as seen’ because the company offered no prospect of honouring their lease. The unit has not been remarketed because of fears that the unit may not be safe for occupation.

Unit 7a - Unit 7a was vacated by A W Keen Esq t/a Bucks Subaru Centre in April 2009 and the landlord decided to instruct it to be remarketed in August 2011. The quoting rent of £5,500 per annum equates to £6.15 per sq ft applied to the 893 sq ft Gross Internal Area measured by the agents. The unit comprises a single-storey workshop with limited yard. A letting to J E Willis Esq t/a Nonfumo Flue Systems Ltd was completed on 15th December 2011 for immediate occupation at a rent of £5,000, equating to £5.60 per sq ft. Again, Nonfumo took advantage of a lack of demand to secure some temporary additional space as they looked for permanent premises elsewhere as explained previously for unit 17.

7.9 In respect of the extent of marketing, websites used include Duncan Bailey-Kennedy’s dedicated website (www.dbk.co.uk), Estates Gazette’s Property Link (www.estatesgazette.com/propertylink) and ‘Want Space Got Space’ (www.wantspacegotspace.co.uk). For sale signage has been erected on each property (e.g. at Unit 13) and also at the site entrance. Leafleting has been undertaken to registered interested applicants and there has been no ‘cold’ leafleting. The details sent out would have been in the form of the particulars included as Appendix 10 to this Statement.

7.10 As discussed previously, West’s Yard has experienced competition from superior specification units with better access requesting higher rents. This competition has put a downward pressure on the rents being sought at West’s Yard on very flexible options. Although marketing has offered very flexible terms, prospective tenants have not followed up their interest, predominantly because of access constraints and the poor state of repair of the units and Estate road. Therefore it is Duncan Bailey Kennedy’s opinion that only those limited units of reasonable repair will be viable for occupation by prospective tenants and to businesses that do not require access by large vehicles or vehicles incapable of negotiating the poor quality Estate road.

7.11 Given the aforementioned competition and constraints associated with the Estate, West’s Yard would only be attractive to industrial tenants that were comfortable locating on an Estate where there is no prominent frontage to a major through route and where, because of the aesthetics of the Estate buildings and users, the business does not require a prestigious / attractive setting. Demand would only be created for the units in the best state of repair where occupiers could arrange insurance and maintain the units without unviable outlay. Even then, the tenant would have to not be concerned about the major access constraints to the site restricting larger vehicles. Duncan Bailey Kennedy’s agency department consider that many prospective tenants are also dissuaded from letting on the Estate due to the poor turning and loading access within the Estate, state of repair of the Estate road and lack of reasonable toilet accommodation.

7.12 Whilst some lettings have been achieved, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that significant periods of time elapsed between units falling vacant, and their letting which further affected the viability of the Estate as an on-going concern. As seen from Table 3 previously, actual lettings do not

WDLP14 00699

improve the viability of the site as an on-going concern if rents are not generated. It is considered that several factors contributed to the void periods between tenancies:

(i) Delays were caused by legal precautions in ‘taking back’ the units because of concern by the landlord that re-entry action may have compromised debt recovery. This was particularly evidenced in respect of Unit 21 where the tenant failed to make any rental payments whatsoever since the commencement of their lease;

(ii) In respect of Plot 5 and Unit 13, significant improvement work had to be undertaken before reoccupation;

(iii) Further delays due to trading conditions in the last five years and the desirability of West’s Yard to tenants;

(iv) Eventual lettings only being secured with existing tenants taking advantage of low rental levels to temporarily expand their operations whilst looking for permanent alternative premises or by speculative businesses who ultimately abscond or go bankrupt.

7.13 Enquiries from prospective tenants concerning West’s Yard number one or two initial approaches per month. These prospective tenants have usually yet to visit the Estate and are attracted by the flexible lease terms and low quoting rents. These enquiries however quickly fall away once the prospective tenants realise that there are severe access constraints into the site, which limits most heavy vehicles from entering, and because of the state of disrepair of the units, which are only available on a ‘let-as-seen’ basis. Tenant’s initially interested in units located further into the Estate are dissuaded by the poor quality of the Estate road, perception of crime on the Estate and turning areas within the Estate itself. The final issue often quoted is the lack of toilet provision within the units and poor communal facilities. Duncan Bailey Kennedy currently have no sustained interest in the units available to let despite still receiving enquiries.

WDLP14 00699

8. Conclusion

8.1 This Marketing and Employment Land Statement has been prepared to accompany a planning application for the redevelopment of an existing employment site, West’s Yard in Saunderton, for new housing. It has demonstrated that the proposals are in full accordance with adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan DPD Policy DM4 by way of demonstrating that it is no longer practical nor viable for the site to be used for employment generating purposes and that housing is an appropriate alternative land use. The site is not considered practical nor viable for continuing employment purposes for the following reasons:

- The above constraints resulting in a high proportion of units being vacant or in tenant arrears – only one unit currently has no outstanding arrears; - Current levels of debt being carried by the Applicant equate to £93,232.33; - Marketing evidence being included to demonstrate that despite a number of the units having been marketed for significant periods of time, no interest has arisen as a result of the availability of units on alternative employment sites that do not suffer the physical and occupational constraints associated with West’s Yard; - The Council’s own 2004 ‘Wycombe Economy Study’ recognising that the site is only of value to the District’s employment land supply if redeveloped. Redevelopment of the site is clearly not a viable option as a result of the large number of vacant and ‘effective vacant’ units, coupled with on-going site maintenance / management costs and debt recovery costs, resulting in significant running deficits; - The Council commissioned 2014 draft Economy Study and Employment Land Review confirming that the site is unviable for continued employment use even in the context of an economic upturn. This is significant as NPPF para. 22 states that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”. - An independent condition survey suggests that the total cost of holistic redevelopment of the entirety of the site is estimated to be £3,659,300.00. In agreement with PBA, local agents DBK conclude that this would not be a viable option given that the value generated by higher quality units delivered following redevelopment would not recoup the investment, largely because the inherent physical constraints associated with the site would remain. - Even if funds unassociated with value generated from those existing units present on the site

WDLP14 00699

were available, redevelopment would remain unviable as the costs associated with such redevelopment would not be able to be recouped from future lettings because of the insurmountable physical and occupational constraints associated with the site severely limiting those potential occupiers for whom West’s Yard would be an attractive proposition.

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX I INDUSTRIAL FLOORSPACE AVAILABILITY

WDLP14 00699

Area Unit Size (sq ft) Type Terms Berber Business Centre, High Kitchener Road, High 490 Industry Leasehold £6000 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2TD

Old Oxford Road, Piddington, High High Wycombe, 817 Industry Leasehold £6944 Per annum Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP14 3BE

Unit 17, Victoria Street, High High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, 1000 Industry Wycombe HP112LT

1a Abercromby Industrial High Estate, Abercromby Avenue, 1117 Industry Leasehold £5250 Per annum Wycombe High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3BW

12 Britannia Industrial Park, High High Wycombe, 1182 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ES

Unit J2, Garland Works, High Desborough Avenue, High 1338 Industry Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2RN

Unit 4, Coopers Court Road, High Stokenchurch, HIGH 1750 Industry Leasehold £8750 Per annum Wycombe WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE

Unit 1, Coopers Court Road, High Stokenchurch, HIGH 1750 Industry Leasehold £8750 Per annum Wycombe WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE

Unit 3, Coopers Court Road, High Stokenchurch, HIGH 1750 Industry Leasehold £8750 Per annum Wycombe WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE

Units 3 & 4, Le Flaive Business High 677 - Centre, High Wycombe, Industry Leasehold £9.95 Per sq ft Wycombe 1770 SqFt Buckinghamshire, HP14 4US WDLP14 00699

Units 9 & 10 Wycombe Freehold £160000 - £165000 High Industrial Mall West End 1042 - Purchase price Industry Wycombe Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1777 SqFt Leasehold £10500 - £12000 Per 2QY annum exclusive

Oakengrove Road, High Hazlemere, High Wycombe, 2507 Industry Freehold Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP15 7ZZ

High 22 Queens Road, High 72778 - Leasehold £19500 Per annum Industry Wycombe Wycombe, HP13 6AQ 2778 SqFt exclusive Soho Mills Industrial Estate, High Thomas Road, Wooburn 2805 Industry Leasehold Wycombe Green, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF

Garland Works, Desborough High Avenue, High Wycombe, 2961 Industry Freehold Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP11 2RN

Hopkins Yard, Valley Road, High Hughenden Valley, High 3283 Industry Leasehold £5.95 Per sq ft Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4LG

Unit 21, Soho Mills, Wooburn High Green, High Wycombe, 3680 Industry Freehold Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF

Knaves Beech Business High Centre, Loudwater, High 4252 Industry Leasehold £42500 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 9QR

Unit B, Knaves Beech Way, High Loudwater, High Wycombe, 4308 Industry Leasehold £38500 Per annum Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP11 1RU

Elite Works, Wellington Road, High High Wycombe, 4700 Industry Leasehold £21150 Per annum Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 3PR 32 New Pond Road, Holmer High Green, High Wycombe, HP15 526 - 4749 Industry Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft Wycombe 6SU WDLP14 00699

The Ranton Site, Coronation High Road, High Wycombe, HP12 4793 Industry Leasehold £25000 Per annum Wycombe 3RP Unit 3 Crusader Industrial Estate, Halifax Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 5100 Industry Leasehold £33000 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SN

Units B2 and B4, Ruskin High Works, Oakridge Road, High 1208 - Industry Leasehold £2.50 Per sq ft Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, 5280 SqFt HP11 2PE

Units 1 & 2 Queensmead Freehold On application High 1698 - Road, Loudwater, High Industry Wycombe 5402 SqFt Leasehold £54000 Per annum Wycombe, HP10 9PX exclusive Wellington Road, High High Freehold Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, 5560 Industry Wycombe HP12 3PR Leasehold £0 Per sq ft

High Ogilvie Road, High Wycombe, 6312 Industry Freehold Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 3DS

Unit 5 Crusader Industrial Estate, Halifax Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 6524 Industry Leasehold £34000 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SN

Stirling Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 9248 Industry Leasehold £6 Per sq ft Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ST

M40 Industrial Centre, High Blenheim Road, High 9300 Industry Leasehold £88500 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RS

Unit N Castle Estate, Turnpike High Road, Cressex Business Park, 9740 Industry Leasehold £7.95 Per sq ft Wycombe High Wycombe, HP12 3TF Halifax Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 5775 - Freehold Industry Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, 11638 HP12 3ST Leasehold WDLP14 00699

Hill Court, Hillbottom Road, High High Wycombe, 11700 Industry Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ

London Road Business Park, High 2271 - Freehold High Wycombe, Industry Wycombe 11993 Buckinghamshire, HP11 1FY Leasehold Abercromby Avenue, High High 1074 - Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, Industry Leasehold £2.95 - £3.95 Per sq ft Wycombe 13099 HP12 3BW

The Microbus Building, High 1000 - Treadaway Hill, Loudwater, Industry Wycombe 14263 High Wycombe, HP10 9QL

Unit B, Lincoln Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 1505 - Industry Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, 14768 HP12 3RH

Sands Ten, Hillbottom Road, High Sands Industrial Estate, High 15282 Industry Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ High 500 London Road, High Leasehold £145000 Per annum 15600 Industry Wycombe Wycombe, HP11 1LP exclusive

Bardeen House, Hillbottom High Road, High Wycombe, 16972 Industry Leasehold £76500 Per annum Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ

12 Merlin Centre, Lancaster High Road, Cressex Business Park, 26315 Industry Wycombe High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3QL

Union Estate, 1 4 Hillbottom High 5073 - Road, High Wycombe, Industry Leasehold £0 Per sq ft Wycombe 26912 Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ

Lancaster Road, Cressex High Business Park, High 28367 Industry Wycombe Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3QH WDLP14 00699

Mill End Road Site, Mill End High 1501 - Road, High Wycombe, HP12 Industry Wycombe 90001 4BG Unit A, Meter House, Marlow Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, 2247 Industry Leasehold £18000 Per annum Buckinghamshire, SL7 1LW Units B & C, Wessex Road , , Marlow Bourne End, 5720 Industry Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft Buckinghamshire, SL8 5DT Bockmer End Farm, Bockmer Marlow End, Marlow, 6700 Industry Buckinghamshire, SL7 2HL Units 8 & 9, Globe Business Marlow Park, First Avenue, Marlow, 16235 Industry Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft Buckinghamshire, SL7 1YA Globe Park, Berkshire, SL7 16235 - Marlow Industry 1YA 50718 11 Bell Street, Princes Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, 5153 Industry Freehold Risborough HP27 0ZZ Remainder - Unit A3b, Rose Business Wycombe Estate, Marlow Bottom, 802 Industry Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft District Buckinghamshire, SL7 3ND Remainder - Unit 3 Ministry Wharf, Wycombe Wycombe Road, Saunderton, 838 Industry Leasehold £11000 Per annum District High Wycombe, HP14 4HW Remainder - Unit B1 The Wharf Business Wycombe Centre Wharf Lane, Bourne 1165 Industry Leasehold £3 Per sq ft District End, SL8 5RU Remainder - Unit 12 Ministry Wharf, Leasehold £12000 Per annum Wycombe Wycombe Road, Saunderton, 1248 Industry exclusive District High Wycombe, HP14 4HW Remainder - 280 Main Road Walters Ash, Leasehold £19500 Per annum Wycombe 1840 Industry High Wycombe, HP14 4TJ exclusive District Unit 1 Crownfield Industrial Remainder - Estate Wycombe Road, Leasehold £11000 Per annum Wycombe 1105 - 2100 Industry Saunderton, High Wycombe, exclusive District HP14 4JB Remainder - Wessex Road Industrial Wycombe Estate, Bourne End, 2163 Industry Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft District Buckinghamshire, SL8 5DT WDLP14 00699

Unit 2 Crownfield Industrial Remainder - Estate Wycombe Road, Leasehold £11000 Per annum Wycombe 1095 - 2188 Industry Saunderton, High Wycombe, exclusive District HP14 4JB Remainder - Unit 1 CR Bates industrial Wycombe Estate, Stokenchurch, High 2550 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum District Wycombe, HP14 3RJ Remainder - Unit 14 CR Bates industrial Wycombe Estate, Stokenchurch, High 2558 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum District Wycombe, HP14 3RJ

Unit 25, Soho Mills Industrial Remainder - Estate, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe 7874 Industry Leasehold £0 Per sq ft Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, District HP10 0PF

Remainder - Chinnor Road, Bledlow Ridge, Wycombe 8170 Industry Freehold On application High Wycombe, HP14 5HA District Remainder - Unit 9, Wessex Road Wycombe Industrial Estate, Bourne End, 12028 Industry Leasehold £6.95 Per sq ft District Buckinghamshire, SL8 5DT Remainder - Abbey Business Centre The Leasehold £20000 Per annum Wycombe 25000 Industry Row, Lane End, HP12 4JF exclusive District Remainder - Holtspur Lane, Wooburn Wycombe Green, Buckinghamshire, 25472 Industry Leasehold £165000 Per annum District HP10 0BB Remainder - The Heights, Ibstone Road, Wycombe 74375 Industry Stokenchurch, HP14 3FE District 412641

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX II WAREHOUSE FLOORSPACE AVAILABILITY

WDLP14 00699

Area Unit Size (sq ft) Type Terms Unit 17, Victoria Street, High Wycombe High Wycombe, 1000 Warehouse Buckinghamshire, HP112LT

Unit 4, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, HIGH High Wycombe 1750 Warehouse Leasehold £8750 Per annum WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE

Unit 1, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, HIGH High Wycombe 1750 Warehouse Leasehold £8750 Per annum WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE

Unit 3, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, HIGH High Wycombe 1750 Warehouse Leasehold £8750 Per annum WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE Unit 6C Abbey Business Leasehold £7003.35 Per High Wycombe Centre, High Wycombe, 1773 Warehouse annum exclusive HP14 3JS Unit 3 Wycombe Trade High Wycombe Park, Lincoln Road, High 2361 Warehouse Leasehold £20000 Per annum Wycombe, HP12 3FF

Oakengrove Road, High Wycombe Hazlemere, High Wycombe, 2507 Warehouse Freehold Buckinghamshire, HP15 7ZZ

Soho Mills Industrial Estate, Thomas Road, Wooburn High Wycombe 2805 Warehouse Leasehold Green, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF

Unit C 11 Duke Street, High High Wycombe 3416 Warehouse Leasehold £2.50 Per sq ft Wycombe, HP13 6EE Units 2 & 3 Merlin House Lancaster Road, Cressex High Wycombe 3362 - 3475 SqFt Warehouse Leasehold £11 Per sq ft Trade Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3PY Unit 21, Soho Mills, Wooburn Green, High High Wycombe 3680 Warehouse Freehold Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF

Elite Works, Wellington High Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, 4700 Warehouse Leasehold £21150 Per annum Buckinghamshire, HP12 3PR

Unit 3 Crusader Industrial Estate, Halifax Road, High Wycombe Cressex Business Park, High 5100 Warehouse Leasehold £33000 Per annum Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SN

Wellington Road, High Freehold High Wycombe Wycombe, 5560 Warehouse Buckinghamshire, HP12 3PR Leasehold £0 Per sq ft WDLP14 00699

Unit 5 Crusader Industrial Estate, Halifax Road, High Wycombe Cressex Business Park, High 6524 Warehouse Leasehold £34000 Per annum Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SN

M40 Industrial Centre, Blenheim Road, High High Wycombe 9300 Warehouse Leasehold £88500 Per annum Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RS

Unit 3 Century Point, High High Wycombe Wycombe, 10015 Warehouse Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SL

Bardeen House, Hillbottom High Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, 16972 Warehouse Leasehold £76500 Per annum Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ

12 Merlin Centre, Lancaster Road, Cressex Business High Wycombe 26315 Warehouse Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3QL

Union Estate, 1 4 Hillbottom 5073 - High Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per sq ft 26912 SqFt Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ

Jackson's Business Park Lancaster Road, High 24001 - High Wycombe Wycombe, Warehouse 28342 SqFt Buckinghamshire, HP12 3QH Coronation Road, , High High Wycombe Wycombe, 29450 Warehouse Leasehold On application Buckinghamshire, HP12 3TZ

Units B & C, Wessex Road , , Marlow Bourne End, 5720 Warehouse Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft Buckinghamshire, SL8 5DT

Green Barn Farm, Marlow Marlow Road, Marlow, 10000 Warehouse Leasehold £65000 Per annum Buckinghamshire, SL7 3DQ

Saxon Court Grymsdyke Farm, Main Road, Lacey Princes Risborough 3610 Warehouse Freehold Green, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, HP27 0RB

11 Bell Street, Princes Princes Risborough Risborough, 5153 Warehouse Freehold Buckinghamshire, HP27 0ZZ 3 Oakfield Road, Bourne Remainder - Wycombe End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 572 Warehouse Leasehold £6950 Per annum District 5QN WDLP14 00699

Unit A3b, Rose Business Remainder - Wycombe Estate, Marlow Bottom, 802 Warehouse Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft District Buckinghamshire, SL7 3ND

Unit 25, Soho Mills Remainder - Wycombe Industrial Estate, Wooburn 7874 Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per sq ft District Green, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF

Carousel House, Wycombe Remainder - Wycombe Road, Stokenchurch, HP14 9034 Warehouse Leasehold District 3RP 179493

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX III DBK FLOORSPACE AVAILABILITY

WDLP14 00699

Land and Property available in Wycombe District

High Wycombe Sq ft High Wycombe Unit 8 Vernon Building, Westbourne Street, High Wycombe, HP11 2PX 356 Industry Leasehold £4750 Per annum High Wycombe Kitchener Road, Berber Business Centre, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2TD 490 Industry Leasehold £6000 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 3 Kitchener Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2TD 490 Industry Leasehold £6000 Per annum High Wycombe Rear Of 11-15 White Hart St, High Wycombe, HP11 2HL 750 Industry Leasehold £3500 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 21, Soho Mills, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF 910 Industry Leasehold £11500 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 17, Victoria Street, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP112LT 1000 Industry

High Wycombe 1a Abercromby Industrial Estate, Abercromby Avenue, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3BW 1117 Industry Leasehold £5250 Per annum High Wycombe 12 Britannia Industrial Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ES 1182 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 1, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, HIGH WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE 1750 Industry Leasehold £8750 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 3, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE 1750 Industry Leasehold £8750 Per annum High Wycombe Units 3 & 4, Le Flaive Business Centre, Church Lane, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4US 1770 Industry Leasehold £9.95 Per sq ft Freehold £160000 - £165000 Purchase price Leasehold £10500 - £12000 Per annum High Wycombe Units 9 & 10 Wycombe Industrial Mall West End Street, High Wycombe, HP11 2QY 1777 Industry exclusive High Wycombe Marlborough Trading Estate, West Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2LB 1843 Industry Leasehold £18500 Per annum High Wycombe Oakengrove Road, Hazlemere, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP15 7ZZ 2507 Industry Freehold High Wycombe Silvanis House Station Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 6AD 2571 Industry Leasehold £30000 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 58B Lincoln Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RG 2666 Industry Leasehold £15863 Per annum High Wycombe 22 Queens Road, High Wycombe, HP13 6AQ 2778 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum exclusive Freehold High Wycombe Lane End Industrial Park, Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3BY 2843 Industry Leasehold £22500 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 12 Lane End Industrial Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3BY 2843 Industry Leasehold £22500 Per annum High Wycombe Hopkins Yard, Valley Road, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4LG 3283 Industry Leasehold £5.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe 23 Soho Mills, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF 3680 Industry Leasehold Per annum High Wycombe Unit 1 Lincoln Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RD 3740 Industry Leasehold £19950 Per annum High Wycombe Knaves Beech Business Centre, Loudwater, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 9QR 4252 Industry Leasehold £42500 Per annum High Wycombe Unit B, Knaves Beech Way, Loudwater, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 1RU 4308 Industry Leasehold £38500 Per annum Genoa Way, London Road, High Wycombe Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 High Wycombe 1FY 4672 Industry High Wycombe Elite Works, Wellington Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3PR 4700 Industry Leasehold £21150 Per annum High Wycombe 32 New Pond Road, Holmer Green, High Wycombe, HP15 6SU 4749 Industry Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe The Ranton Site, Coronation Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RP 4793 Industry Leasehold £25000 Per annum Unit 5 Crusader Industrial Estate, Halifax Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, High Wycombe Buckinghamshire, HP12 3SN 4848 Industry Leasehold £31500 Per annum Unit 4 Wycombe Trade Park, Lincoln Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, High Wycombe HP12 3FF 5031 Industry Leasehold £42500 Per annum High Wycombe Central Park Business Centre, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 5HJ 5254 Industry High Wycombe Oakridge Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2PE 5280 Industry Leasehold £2.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe High Street, Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3DY 5303 Industry Freehold On application High Wycombe Units 1 & 2 Queensmead Road, Loudwater, High Wycombe, HP10 9PX 5402 Industry Leasehold £54000 Per annum exclusive Freehold High Wycombe Wellington Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3PR 5560 Industry Leasehold £0 Per sq ft High Wycombe Archway House Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 5HJ 5628 Industry Leasehold Per annum High Wycombe Ogilvie Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3DS 6312 Industry Freehold High Wycombe Unit 2, Fryers Works, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3BW 6436 Industry Leasehold £3.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe Block C, Commercial Square, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2RH 7640 Industry Leasehold £3.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe Grafton Street, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3AJ 8539 Industry Leasehold £3.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe Mountford House Grafton Street, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3AJ 8539 Industry Leasehold £3.95 Per sq ft WDLP14 00699

High Wycombe M40 Industrial Centre, Blenheim Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RS 9300 Industry Leasehold £88500 Per annum High Wycombe Rosebery Avenue, Pinions, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 7AH 9639 Industry Freehold High Wycombe Unit N Turnpike Way, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3TF 9740 Industry Leasehold £7.95 Per sq ft Unit N Castle Estate, Turnpike Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 High Wycombe 3TF 9740 Industry Leasehold £7.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe Tannery Road, Off Gomm Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 7EQ 9822 Industry Leasehold £4.95 Per sq ft Freehold High Wycombe Halifax Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ST 11638 Industry Leasehold High Wycombe Halifax Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ST 11638 Industry High Wycombe 1 Crusader Industrial Estate Stirling Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3ST 11638 Industry High Wycombe 8 Jubilee Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2PG 11645 Industry High Wycombe Unit 2 Wessex Road, Bourne End, Berkshire, SL8 5DT 12028 Industry Leasehold £6.95 Per sq ft High Wycombe Unit B, Lincoln Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RH 14768 Industry High Wycombe Unit 4 Hillbottom Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HS 15145 Industry Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe Sands 10, Hillbottom Road, High Wycombe, HP12 4HS 15145 Industry Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe Sands Ten, Hillbottom Road, Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ 15282 Industry High Wycombe 500 London Road, High Wycombe, HP11 1LP 15600 Industry Leasehold £145000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Coronation Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RS 16911 Industry High Wycombe Bardeen House, Hillbottom Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HJ 16972 Industry Leasehold £76500 Per annum High Wycombe Lincoln Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 1RG 24034 Industry 12 Merlin Centre, Lancaster Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 High Wycombe 3QL 26315 Industry

High Wycombe Unit B Jacksons Industrial Estate, Lancaster Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3QH 28342 Industry High Wycombe Lancaster Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3QH 28367 Industry High Wycombe Accuray House Coronation Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3TZ 29450 Industry High Wycombe Mill End Road Site, Mill End Road, High Wycombe, HP12 4BG 90001 Industry High Wycombe Unit 21 Riverside Business Centre, High Wycombe, HP11 2LT 1055 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £7912 Per annum exclusive Freehold £160000 Purchase price High Wycombe Unit 7 Wycombe Industrial Mall West End Street, High Wycombe, HP11 2QY 1111 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £10000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 9 Britannia Industrial Estate Dashwood Avenue, High Wycombe, HP12 3ES 1179 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £12000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 4 Britannia Industrial Estate Dashwood Avenue, High Wycombe, HP12 3ES 1235 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Units 10 & 11 Central Park Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HG 1366 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £10500 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 11, Riverside Business Centre, Victoria Street , High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2LT 1555 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £6 Per sq ft High Wycombe Unit 5a Fryers Works, Abercromby Avenue, High Wycombe, HP12 3BU 1600 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £4000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 4, Coopers Court Road, Stokenchurch, HIGH WYCOMBE, Buckinghamshire, HP14 3UE 1750 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £8750 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 3 Britannia Industrial Estate Dashwood Avenue, High Wycombe, HP12 3ES 2098 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £10334 Per annum exclusive Unit 16 Lincoln Park, Lincoln Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 High Wycombe 3RD 2175 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per sq ft High Wycombe Unit 5b Premacto Works, Queensmead Road, Loudwater, High Wycombe, HP10 9XA 2341 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Unit 1C Abercromby Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, HP12 3BW 2366 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £15000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Albion House, Lane End Road, Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4HG 2575 Industry/Warehouse High Wycombe Unit 3 Independent Business Park Mill Road, Stokenchurch, High Wycombe 2617 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £24500 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 3 Central Park Business Centre Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HG 2704 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £19500 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe 9 Wye Industrial Estate, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 1LH 2786 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £32500 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 2 Lincoln Park Lincoln Road, High Wycombe, HP12 3RD 3023 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe 474-476 London Road, High Wycombe, HP11 1LP 3350 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Lincoln Park Business Centre, Lincoln Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3RD 3740 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £19950 Per annum High Wycombe Wye Industrial Estate Units 1 & 2, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 1LH 5320 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per annum High Wycombe Unit 10, Wooburn Industrial Park Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, HP10 0JN 5346 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £40000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 12, Wooburn Industrial Park Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, HP10 0JN 5346 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £40000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 6 Crusader Industrial Estate, Cressex, High Wycombe, HP12 3SN 7240 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £44000 Per annum Freehold £499000 Purchase price High Wycombe Coles House Grafton Street, High Wycombe, HP12 3AJ 7334 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £35000 Per annum exclusive WDLP14 00699

Freehold On application High Wycombe 7 The Union Centre Hillbottom Road, Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, HP12 4HJ 7469 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application Freehold On application High Wycombe Unit 7 Union Way Hillbottom Road, Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, HP12 4HJ 7469 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £5 Per sq ft High Wycombe Units 5,8,9 & 10 Treadaway Technical Centre Treadaway Hill, Loudwater, High Wycombe, HP10 9RS 7500 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Unit 8 The Gateway Centre, Coronation Rd Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3SU 8530 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £73000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 9, Wooburn Industrial Park Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, HP10 0JN 9089 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £55000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit 1 Sunters End, Hillbottom Road, Sands Industrial Estate, High Wycombe, HP12 4HS 10947 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £80000 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit C Shackleton Road, off Lincoln Rd, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3TR 19600 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Coronation Road Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3TA 23785 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application High Wycombe Unit 12 Merlin Centre Lamcaster Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe 26315 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £9 Per sq ft Unit L Castle Estate, Turnpike Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 Freehold High Wycombe 3TF 58102 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe Unit 6C Abbey Business Centre, High Wycombe, HP14 3JS 1773 Warehouse Leasehold £7003.35 Per annum exclusive High Wycombe Unit C 11 Duke Street, High Wycombe, HP13 6EE 3416 Warehouse Leasehold £2.50 Per sq ft High Wycombe Units 2 & 3 Merlin House Lancaster Road, Cressex Trade Park, High Wycombe, HP12 3PY 3475 Warehouse Leasehold £11 Per sq ft High Wycombe Coronation Road, Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3TZ 29450 Warehouse Leasehold On application

102 880634 Total availability (sq No. of units ft)

Elsewhere in Wycombe District Marlow Unit W Marlow Bottom, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3ND 1190 Industry Leasehold £7.50 Per sq ft Marlow Unit A, Meter House, Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 1LW 2247 Industry Leasehold £18000 Per annum Marlow Bockmer End Farm, Bockmer End, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 2HL 6700 Industry Princes Risborough 11 Bell Street, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, HP27 0ZZ 5153 Industry Freehold Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 3 Ministry Wharf, Wycombe Road, Saunderton, High Wycombe, HP14 4HW 838 Industry Leasehold £11000 Per annum Remainder - Wycombe District 4 A & B, Rotten Row Farm, Hambleden, HENLEY-ON-THAMES, Oxfordshire, RG9 6LT 1134 Industry Remainder - Wycombe District Unit B1 The Wharf Business Centre Wharf Lane, Bourne End, SL8 5RU 1165 Industry Leasehold £3 Per sq ft Remainder - Wycombe District Unit W, Rose Business Estate, Marlow Bottom Road, Marlow Bottom, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3ND 1190 Industry Leasehold £10 Per sq ft Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 12 Ministry Wharf, Wycombe Road, Saunderton, High Wycombe, HP14 4HW 1248 Industry Leasehold £12000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District 280 Main Road Walters Ash, High Wycombe, HP14 4TJ 1840 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 1 Crownfield Industrial Estate Wycombe Road, Saunderton, High Wycombe, HP14 4JB 2100 Industry Leasehold £11000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 2 Crownfield Industrial Estate Wycombe Road, Saunderton, High Wycombe, HP14 4JB 2188 Industry Leasehold £11000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 1 CR Bates industrial Estate, Stokenchurch, High Wycombe, HP14 3RJ 2550 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 14 CR Bates industrial Estate, Stokenchurch, High Wycombe, HP14 3RJ 2558 Industry Leasehold £19500 Per annum Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 25, Soho Mills Industrial Estate, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF 7874 Industry Leasehold £0 Per sq ft Remainder - Wycombe District Chinnor Road, Bledlow Ridge, High Wycombe, HP14 5HA 8170 Industry Freehold On application Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 9, Wessex Road Industrial Estate, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5DT 12028 Industry Leasehold £6.95 Per sq ft Remainder - Wycombe Abbey Business Centre The Row, Lane End, HP12 4JF 25000 Industry Leasehold £20000 Per annum exclusive WDLP14 00699

District Remainder - Wycombe District Holtspur Lane, Wooburn Green, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0BB 25472 Industry Leasehold £165000 Per annum Marlow Unit K1 Rose Business Estate Marlow Bottom, Marlow, SL7 3ND 430 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft Marlow Unit R1 Rose Business Estate Marlow Bottom, Marlow, SL7 3ND 657 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £8.50 Per sq ft Marlow First Floor, Unit A Meter House Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, SL7 1NA 2247 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £2.50 Per sq ft Freehold On application Marlow Ash Hill Development, Marlow Road, Lane End, HP14 3JH 5000 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application Marlow Green Barn Farm, Marlow Road, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3DQ 10000 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £65000 Per annum Leasehold £4.50 Per sq ft per annum Marlow Units P & R Thames Industrial Estate, Marlow, SL7 1TB 12849 Industry/Warehouse exclusive Princes Risborough Workshop/Warehouse, New Road, Princes Risborough, High Wycombe 913 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £9200 Per annum exclusive Saxon Court Grymsdyke Farm, Main Road, Lacey Green, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, HP27 Princes Risborough 0RB 3610 Industry/Warehouse Freehold Remainder - Wycombe District Wests Yard, Slough Lane, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4HN 1615 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £18000 Per annum Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 21, West's Yard Slough Lane, Saunderton, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP14 4HN 1826 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £13500 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District 18 Soho Mills Industrial Estate, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP10 0PF 4100 Industry/Warehouse Freehold Remainder - Wycombe Freehold On application District Marlow Road, Lane End, HP14 3JH 5000 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application Remainder - Wycombe District Wests Yard, Slough Lane, Saunderton, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4HN 7584 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £8100 Per annum Remainder - Wycombe District Unit 1 Wessex Park Estate Wessex Road, Bourne End 9122 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £59500 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Wycombe District 3 Oakfield Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5QN 572 Warehouse Leasehold £6950 Per annum

34 176170 Total availability (sq No. of units ft)

WDLP14 00699

Land and Property available in Aylesbury Vale

Aylesbury Sq ft Aylesbury Tayfar Trading Estate Griffin Lane, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8BP 650 Industry Leasehold £5500 Per annum Freehold Aylesbury Workshop At 31 Stoke Road, Aylesbury, HP21 7TE 767 Industry Leasehold £9000 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 2 Evett Close Stocklake, Aylesbury, HP20 1DW 830 Industry Leasehold £7000 Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Old Rifle Range Farm, Great Kimble, Aylesbury, HP17 0XS 860 Industry Leasehold £6500 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 7 Warren House, Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8DB 903 Industry Leasehold £7500 Per annum Aylesbury The Point Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8DB 903 Industry Leasehold £7500 Per annum Aylesbury 7 Griffin Industrial Mall Griffin Lane, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8BP 1209 Industry Leasehold £11000 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 1C Marsh Hill Farm, Marsh, Aylesbury, HP17 8ST 1380 Industry Aylesbury Unit 3 Clifton Business Park, Chamberlain Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8DY 1440 Industry Leasehold £9700 Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Vale Industrial Estate Phase 1, Southern Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9EW 1565 Industry Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury Unit 9, Leaches Farm Business Centre, Kingswood, Aylesbury, HP18 0RD 2033 Industry Leasehold Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Unit 18 Southern Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9EW 2250 Industry Leasehold £14000 Per annum Freehold Aylesbury Unit 1 Aylesbury Business Centre, Chamberlain Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8DY 2337 Industry Leasehold £16000 Per annum Aylesbury Edison Workspace, 52 Edison Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8TE 2410 Industry Aylesbury Unit 3, Cheddington Lane, Airfield Industrial Estate, Aylesbury, HP23 4QR 3136 Industry Leasehold £20000 Per annum Aylesbury Shield House Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8DE 3490 Industry Leasehold £15000 Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Unit B & B1 California Industrial Est, Aylesbury, HP21 8HH 3506 Industry Leasehold £17500 Per annum exclusive Unit J, Merlin Centre, Gatehouse Close, Gatehouse Industrial Area, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury HP19 8DP 3550 Industry Freehold Freehold Aylesbury Unit 10 Anglo Business Park, Smeaton Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8UP 3704 Industry Leasehold £8.10 Per sq ft Aylesbury Drakes Drive, Aylesbury, HP18 9FE 4250 Industry Leasehold £29468 Per annum Freehold Aylesbury Unit 17 Anglo Business Park, Smeaton Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8UP 5251 Industry Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury 15 Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 5257 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 11C Quilters Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5BL 5267 Industry Leasehold £35000 Per annum Aylesbury 12 Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 5594 Industry Leasehold £35000 Per annum Aylesbury 13 Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 5663 Industry Leasehold £3500 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 4, Meadow View, Long Crendon, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9EQ 5767 Industry Leasehold £36950 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 4 Aylesbury Business Centre, Chamberlain Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8DY 5920 Industry Leasehold £30000 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 23 Vale Industrial Estate, Southern Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9EQ 6329 Industry Freehold Aylesbury Bicester Road, AYLESBURY, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8ZU 6610 Industry Leasehold £42975 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 5 Field End, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9BB 6800 Industry Leasehold £40000 Per annum

Aylesbury 5 Field End at Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, Thame/Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9EJ 6800 Industry Leasehold £40000 Per annum Aylesbury Bessemer Crescent, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8TF 7014 Industry Aylesbury Units 1-6 Griffin Industrial, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8BP 7082 Industry Freehold Aylesbury Sivatech Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8DJ 8000 Industry Leasehold £4.50 - £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury 10 Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire 8305 Industry Leasehold £65000 Per annum Aylesbury Rabans Lane Industrial Area, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8TE 8800 Industry Aylesbury Unit 17 Southern Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9EW 9408 Industry Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury 6 Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 9712 Industry Leasehold £60500 Per annum Aylesbury Stocklake Park Unit 5, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 9722 Industry Leasehold £60500 Per annum Aylesbury 7 Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 9726 Industry Leasehold £60500 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 16 Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 9726 Industry Leasehold £60500 Per annum Aylesbury Bittern Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 0WP 10293 Industry Leasehold £67000 Per annum Aylesbury Units 3 & 5 Millennium Point, Broadfields, Aylesbury, HP19 8ZU 10293 Industry Aylesbury Unit 2 Printers End, Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8DB 10338 Industry

WDLP14 00699

Units 15,16 & 17, Lawn Farm Business Centre, Grendon Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury HP18 0QX 10597 Industry Leasehold £28500 - £65750 Per annum Freehold Aylesbury Chamberlain Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8DY 10631 Industry Leasehold £35000 Per annum Aylesbury Kempson Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8UQ 11000 Industry Leasehold £40000 Per annum ylesbury 14/16 Kempson Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8UQ 11000 Industry Leasehold £40000 Per annum Aylesbury Detached Industrial Building Griffin Lane, Aylesbury, HP19 8BP 11085 Industry Leasehold £38000 Per annum exclusive Freehold Aylesbury Units 13 & 14, March Place , Aylesbury, HP19 8UA 11861 Industry Leasehold £6.25 Per sq ft STOCKLAKE PARK DESIGN & BUILD, Farmbrough Close, Stocklake, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 Aylesbury 1DQ 12000 Industry Aylesbury Stocklake Park, Farmbrough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 12000 Industry Aylesbury Wornal Park Menmarsh Road, Worminghall, AYLESBURY, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9JX 12025 Industry Freehold Leasehold £34500 - £82800 Per annum Aylesbury Bicester Road Industrial Estate, Faraday Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8RY 14400 Industry exclusive Freehold Aylesbury Unit 1 Printers End, Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, HP19 8DB 15078 Industry Leasehold £6 Per sq ft Aylesbury 2 Rabans Lane, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8RT 17000 Industry Freehold £65 Per sq ft Aylesbury Brunel Gate , Telford Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8AR 19751 Industry Leasehold £5.25 Per sq ft Aylesbury Faraday Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8RY 21520 Industry Aylesbury Stocklake Park, Stocklake Road, Aylesbury, Bucks, HP201DQ 29000 Industry Aylesbury College Road North Business Park, Aston Clinton, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5EZ 87285 Industry Freehold Aylesbury Westcott Venture Park, Wescott, Aylesbury, HP18 0XB 100001 Industry Aylesbury College Road North, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5EZ 240001 Industry Leasehold Per sq ft Aylesbury Unit 10 , Wingbury Courtyard Business Village, Wingrave, Aylesbury, HP22 4LW 325 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £355 Per Month Aylesbury Space Business Centre, Smeaton Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8FJ 491 Industry/Warehouse Licence On application Aylesbury Unit 3, Townsend Piece Bicester Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8BQ 956 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £8750 Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Unit 19 Bridgegate Industrial Park, Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, HP19 8XN 1050 Industry/Warehouse Freehold £135000 On application Aylesbury Unit 9A, Wingbury Courtyard Business Village, Wingrave, Aylesbury, HP22 4LW 1200 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £1167 Per Month Aylesbury Unit 6 March Place Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, HP19 8UG 1208 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £7.25 Per sq ft Aylesbury Kemps Farm Chapel Road, Ford, Aylesbury, HP17 8XG 1500 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £160 - £531.78 Per Month Aylesbury Unit 15 March Place, Gatehouse Way Estate, Aylesbury, HP19 8UG 2230 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £16500 Per annum exclusive Aylesbury Unit 5 - Vale Industrial Estate, Southern Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9AY 2250 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £14000 Per annum Aylesbury Anglo Business Park, Unit 5A, Smeaton Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8UP 2292 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £18000 Per annum Aylesbury Unit 18, Park Street Industrial Estate, Osier Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1EB 2700 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £10000 Per annum Aylesbury California, Aylesbury, HP21 8HH 3250 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £18000 Per annum exclusive Freehold Aylesbury Anglo Business Park, Smeaton Close, Coldharbour Way, Aylesbury, HP19 8UP 5213 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury College Road Business Centre College Road North, Aston Clinton, HP22 5EZ 5810 Industry/Warehouse Freehold £250000 Purchase price Freehold Aylesbury Unit 1B & 2B, Broadfields Court, Broadfields, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8BU 6078 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £5.75 Per sq ft Aylesbury Unit 5 Millennium Point, Broadfields Business Park, Aylesbury, HP19 8ZU 6675 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £43500 Per annum Aylesbury Corrib Industrial Area Griffin Lane, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8BP 7082 Industry/Warehouse Aylesbury Units 1,10, 16, 21 & 22, Bicester Road Industrial Estate, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8RY 7180 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold Per annum exclusive Aylesbury 66-69 Rabans Close Rabans Lane Industrial Park, Aylesbury, HP19 8RS 7320 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £39750 Per annum exclusive Freehold Aylesbury Vale Industrial Estate Phase 2, Southern Road, Aylesbury, HP19 9EW 9408 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Aylesbury 3 Millennium Point, Broadfields, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8TQ 10293 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £67000 Per annum Freehold Aylesbury Unit 3 Premus, Coldharbour Way, Brunel Park, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8AP 10785 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application Aylesbury Building 3,5 & 6 Moeller Electric Complex Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury, HP19 8DH 32945 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold On application Aylesbury Unit 6, The Point, Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 8DB 38000 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £4 Per sq ft Aylesbury 20 Stocklake Park, Farmborough Close, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1DQ 7901 Warehouse Leasehold £49000 Per annum WDLP14 00699

Aylesbury Media Warehouse, Tring Road/Park Street, Aylesbury, HP20 1PG 32716 Warehouse Leasehold On application

88 1077943 Total availability (sq No. of units ft)

Elswhere in Aylesbury Vale Buckingham Copperhorse Farm, Buckingham, MK18 4ND 0 Industry Freehold Buckingham Hill Cottage Farm, Hogshaw, Buckingham, MK18 3LA 1150 Industry Leasehold £4.20 Per sq ft Buckingham Celtic Court, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1RQ 1833 Industry Freehold Buckingham Little Balmer, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1TF 1925 Industry Leasehold £10500 Per annum Buckingham Unit 16, Little Balmer, Buckingham, MK18 2465 Industry Freehold £115000 Purchase price Buckingham 34-36 Balmer Cut, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, MK18 1UL 2658 Industry Leasehold £8500 Per annum exclusive Buckingham 16 Little Balmer, BUCKINGHAM, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1TF 2700 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum Buckingham Whiteleaf Business Centre Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham 2960 Industry Leasehold On application Buckingham Unit 11 Top Angel, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1TH 7500 Industry Leasehold £1.93 Per sq ft Freehold Buckingham Unit 21 Angelvale, Top Angel, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, MK18 1TH 7500 Industry Leasehold £1.93 Per sq ft Buckingham Unit 1, Huntsmill , Shalstone, BUCKINGHAM, Buckinghamshire, MK18 5ND 9022 Industry Leasehold £27500 Per annum Buckingham Shires Trading Park, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, NN13 7EZ 9622 Industry Freehold Buckingham Cemetery Lodge Brackley Road, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1JA 11426 Industry Leasehold £9500 - £18500 Per annum Buckingham Three Bridgemill Industrial Park, Twyford, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 4DY 21600 Industry Leasehold On application Buckingham 1 & 2, Radclive Road, Gawcott, BUCKINGHAM, Buckinghamshire, MK18 4BL 36217 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum Buckingham Units 1 & 2 Radclive Road, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 4DF 36991 Industry Leasehold £0 Per annum Buckingham 18 Top Angel, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, MK18 1TH 67751 Industry Leasehold £4.50 Per sq ft Buckingham Unit E Tingewick Road, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1SU 129626 Industry Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Pear Tree Farm Bicester Road, Marsh Gibbon, Oxfordshire, OX27 0EU 780 Industry Leasehold £4080 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Unit 15, Wornal Park, Menmarsh Road , Worminghall, Aylesbury/ Thame, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9JX 2580 Industry Leasehold £16250 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 13 Meadow View, Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, HP18 9EQ 3100 Industry Leasehold £21000 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 2 Meadow View, Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9EQ 3669 Industry Leasehold £22500 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Unit 2, Williams Court, Nr Tring, Hertfordshire, LU7 9GJ 3729 Industry Leasehold £25000 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 3 Hikers Way Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, HP18 9RW 5452 Industry Leasehold £21500 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 19 London Road, Aston Clinton, HP22 5HG 6475 Industry Leasehold £57500 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Aylesbury Freehold Vale Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, , Buckinghamshire, HP18 9BA 9040 Industry Leasehold £29468 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Freehold £100 Per sq ft Vale Plot 6, Drakes Drive, Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, HP18 9BA 10000 Industry Leasehold £6.95 Per sq ft Remainder - Aylesbury Freehold Vale Units 6 & 7 , Drakes Drive, Long Crendon, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9BA 10000 Industry Leasehold Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Former Station Goods Yard, Queen Catherine Road, Steeple Claydon 15600 Industry Freehold £180000 Purchase price Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 1 Drakes Drive, Long Crendon, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9BA 20000 Industry Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Phase 1 Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, Thame, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9BB 80000 Industry

WDLP14 00699

Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Aston41, College Road North, Aston Clinton, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5EZ 240000 Industry Freehold Buckingham Unit 16 Little Balmer, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire 2734 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Units 7 & 8 Brook End Works Brook End, Weston Turville, HP22 5RQ 351 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £225 - £265 Per Month Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Unit 8H Upper Barn Farm Business Park Bicester Road, Westcott, HP18 0JX 985 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £105 Per Week Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Unit 7 Lawn Farm Business Centre Grendon Underwood, Aylesbury, HP18 0QX 1050 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold Per annum exclusive Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Units 8A & B Upper Barn Farm Business Park Bicester Road, Westcott, HP18 0JX 2070 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £200 Per Week Remainder - Aylesbury Vale The Warehouse Sunny Hill Farm, Little Horwood, MK17 0NS 3000 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £20000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Aylesbury Vale 1-7 Lea Lane Crendon Industrial Park, Long Crendon, HP18 9RN 3884 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £15500 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Part of Cane End Works, Rowsham Road, Bierton, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5BH 3946 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £25650 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Freehold Vale Units 9 & 9A Wornal park Estate, Menmarsh Road, Worminghall, Aylesbury, HP18 9JX 5940 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £6.50 Per sq ft Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Middle Blackgrove Farm, Berryfields Road, Quainton, Aylesbury 6605 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £3.75 - £4.50 Per sq ft Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Westcott Venture Park , Westcott, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP18 0XB 10755 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Woodham Depot Woodham, Aylesbury, HP18 0QE 14910 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £65000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Manitowoc House, Nr Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 4FD 15747 Industry/Warehouse Leasehold £0 Per sq ft

Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Notley Farm, Chearsley Road, Long Crendon, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9ER 160 Warehouse Leasehold £2400 Per annum Remainder - Aylesbury Vale Unit 3D Haddenham Business Park Haddenham, Aylesbury, HP17 8LJ 3390 Warehouse Leasehold £22000 Per annum exclusive Remainder - Aylesbury Vale The Hangar, Worminghall Road, Oakley, Thame, HP18 9UL 10000 Warehouse Leasehold £4 Per sq ft

48 848898 Total availability (sq No. of units ft)

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX IV INDIVIDUAL UNIT SCHEDULE

WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size Arrears Comp

1 CONDEMNED WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

2 R Tomes £ 3,900 3 years from 29/09/2003 568 £ 2,104 £4,600.00 £2,496.00 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

3 &4 R Smith £ 3,500 5 years from 12/06/2004 £ 6,758 £10,400 £5,200 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

6 J Walker All Spray £ 4,250 3 years from 01/10/2008 642 £ 4,202 £4,550 £348 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears MJ Sturt MJS 7 Autos £ 4,125 6 years from 25/03/2003 584 £ 4,498 £7,700 £3,202 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

7a Nonfumo £ 5,000 3 years from 15/12/2011 718 £ 23,782 £4,350 £4,350 8 Nonfumo £ 2,200 10 years from 11/03/2005 400 inc Above £3,400 £1,700 17 Nonfumo £ 20,500 Expires 10/03/2015 3833 inc Above £10,750 £10,750 20 & 20A Nonfumo £ 18,375 10 years from 11/03/2005 inc Above £30,000 £30,000 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

9 BE Kitchling £ 3,700 9 years from 29/11/2002 660 £ 3,190 £5,500 £2,310 WDLP14 00699

West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Arrear Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Compensation on After s Arrears

10 & 11 Paul Sanyanga £ 6,075 1 year from 01/11/2012 7097 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Arrear Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Compensation on After s Arrears AP Waliezek APW 12 Motors £ 5,816 6 years from 29/09/2002 4221 £20,500 £20,500 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Arrear Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Compensation on After s Arrears

13 VACANT £ 11,000 1628 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

14 J Yates £ 3,960 6 years from 08/11/2002 3486 £ 7,507 £4,850 £0 19 J Yates £ 3,850 6 years from 06/11/2002 £4,950 £4,950 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

15 Hawes £ 30,250 12 years from 17/02/2002 12750 £ 19,825 £42,000 £22,175 16 & 22 Hawes Inc above 12 years from 17/02/2002 9420 23 Hawes £ 8,000 9 years 16 days expiring 16/02/2014 3124 Inc above WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

18 K B Motors £ 3,400 No Documents £ 1,803 £10,600 £8,797 WDLP14 00699

West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

21 Groupo El Carmen Ltd £ 11,500 5 years from 11/05/2012 1810 WDLP14 00699 West Yards - Saunderton

Compensati Unit Tenant Rent PA Term Size sf Arrears Compensation on After Arrears

Car Park J Yates £ 1,750 3 years from30/01/2011 1810

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX V EXISTING SITE LAYOUT PLAN

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX VI CONDITION SURVEY

WDLP14 00699

INSPECTION REPORT

Relating to

WESTS YARD SAUNDERTON

On behalf of

DANDARA LIMITED

AUGUST 2013

ASTON BUILDING SURVEYORS North View Barn 1 Albert Street AYLESBURY Buckinghamshire HP20 1LY

Tel: 01296 485500 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

1. INSTRUCTIONS

To provide a condition survey for each of the units on the estate together with a breakdown of the works needed to retain the units in a lettable condition or works required to raise the standard suitable for letting.

To include for estimate of costs associated with meeting health and safety standards and associated with achieving the standards required to meet market expectations.

2. INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY

Mr C Higgins of Dandara Limited.

3. DESCRIPTION

The Site

The main entrance to West’s Yard is via Slough Lane and this connects directly with the A4010 Wycombe Road. High Wycombe is to the south and Princes Risborough / Aylesbury are to the north.

West’s Yard is close to a small residential development but is otherwise surrounded by open countryside and agricultural land. The site has a sloped gradient (west to east).

Saunderton Railway Station is immediately adjacent to the site which is a main line link from Aylesbury to High Wycombe and London Marylebone.

West’s Industrial Estate is a piecemeal development of twenty three units that have grown over a period from the 1930s to the 1970s. The buildings are of a very basic standard of construction and only a few of the buildings have water supplies and drainage. No mains gas is available to the estate.

I have carried out an inspection of each of the units in detail and met with some of the tenants. Some of the units are unoccupied. My summary of findings and assessment of works and costs are as follows.

The costs indicated in this report are estimates for guidance only and not based on a specification or schedule. Actual tender costs from building contractors will vary from those shown.

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 2 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4. THE BUILDINGS

4.1 Unit 1 Photographs 1, 2

BUILDING TYPE Detached building ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1930s to 1950s CONSTRUCTION The main building is partly of steel framed construction and partly of timber framed construction. The outside elevations are part metal clad and part timber clad. The roof is mono pitched and covered with corrugated metal panels. The floor is part cast concrete and part bare earth. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building structure is in a very poor state of repair. There is corrosion of the metal work and decay of the woodwork. None of the framework, claddings or roof linings are in a serviceable or salvageable condition. I consider the building to be beyond economic repair. With this particular building, I see no alternative other than to demolish the existing unit and to form a new structure suitable for purpose. COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 2300 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £138,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for mains services £30,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £25,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land. Sub Total £213,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water High Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Free standing portacabin in dilapidated and poor condition.

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 3 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH ONE

PHOTOGRAPH TWO

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 4 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.2 Unit 2 Photographs 3, 4, 5

BUILDING TYPE Detached building ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION Single skin blockwork with steel frame roof structure and mono pitched profiled clad over original fibre cement cladding panels. The perimeter walls are finished to fair faced blockwork and painted. The floor structure is of cast concrete. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The unit is in a poor and deteriorated overall condition. None of the building structure or enclosure, would comply in any way with current building regulations in terms of (1) structure, (2) fire safety, (3) resistance to moisture, (4) ventilation, (5) sanitation and drainage, (6) heating, (7) thermal insulation and (8) access for disabled people. The works required to bring the building up to a good tenantable state of repair would need to include for an extensive refurbishment of the roof covering, perimeter walls, windows, doors, rainwater drainage and internal / external finishes generally. Provision would also need to be made for making mains services connections in respect of electricity, water and drainage. COSTS TO REFURBISH £50,000 plus fees at 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 1490 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £90,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for mains services £20,000 connections • Add for costs in connection with £16,500 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £146,500 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water High Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 1 No. metal storage container and 1 No. livestock box trailer for storage all in poor condition.

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 5 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 6 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THREE

PHOTOGRAPH FOUR

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 7 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH FIVE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 8 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.3 Unit 3 Photographs 6, 7

BUILDING TYPE Left hand semi detached single storey. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION Single skin blockwork with steel frame roof structure and mono pitched profiled clad over original fibre cement cladding panels. The perimeter walls are finished to fair faced blockwork and painted. The floor structure is of cast concrete. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The unit is in a poor and deteriorated overall condition. None of the building structure or enclosure, would comply in any way with current building regulations in terms of (1) structure, (2) fire safety, (3) resistance to moisture, (4) ventilation, (5) sanitation and drainage, (6) heating, (7) thermal insulation and (8) access for disabled people. The works required to bring the building up to a good tenantable state of repair would need to include for an extensive refurbishment of the roof covering, perimeter walls, windows, doors, rainwater drainage and internal / external finishes generally. Provision would also need to be made for making mains services connections in respect of electricity, water and drainage. COST TO REFURBISH £25,000 plus fees at 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 720 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £45,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,750.00 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £94,750.00 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water High Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Portacabin x 2 No. both in poor condition

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 9 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 10 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH SIX

PHOTOGRAPH SEVEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 11 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.4 Unit 4 Photographs 8, 9

BUILDING TYPE Right hand semi detached ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE CONSTRUCTION MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The unit is in a poor and deteriorated overall condition. None of the building structure or enclosure, would comply in any way with current building regulations in terms of (1) structure, (2) fire safety, (3) resistance to moisture, (4) ventilation, (5) sanitation and drainage, (6) heating, (7) thermal insulation and (8) access for disabled people. The works required to bring the building up to a good tenantable state of repair would need to include for an extensive refurbishment of the roof covering, perimeter walls, windows, doors, rainwater drainage and internal / external finishes generally. Provision would also need to be made for making mains services connections in respect of electricity, water and drainage. COSTS TO REFURBISH £25,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 720 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £45,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £94.750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water High Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Portacabin x 1 No. in poor condition

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 12 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH EIGHT

PHOTOGRAPH NINE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 13 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.5 Unit 5 Photographs 10, 11

BUILDING TYPE No buildings on site. The land is used for storage purposes only by a building contractor. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE Not applicable CONSTRUCTION Not applicable MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION Not applicable

COSTS TO REDEVELOP Not applicable • Gross external floor area of existing • Redevelopment cost building to existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water High Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 14 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TEN

PHOTOGRAPH ELEVEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 15 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.6 Unit 6 Photograph 12

BUILDING TYPE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION The building is of pre cast reinforced concrete frame and finished with pre cast reinforced cladding panels. The roof is double pitched and covered with fibre cement sheet lining panels. It has a cast concrete floor. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building structure and roof coverings are extensively weathered and covered with vegetation. The unit is in a poor and deteriorated overall condition. None of the building structure or enclosure, would comply in any way with current building regulations in terms of (1) structure, (2) fire safety, (3) resistance to moisture, (4) ventilation, (5) sanitation and drainage, (6) heating, (7) thermal insulation and (8) access for disabled people. The works required to bring the building up to a good tenantable state of repair would need to include for an extensive refurbishment of the roof covering, perimeter walls, windows, doors, rainwater drainage and internal / external finishes generally. Provision would also need to be made for making mains services connections in respect of electricity, water and drainage. COSTS TO REFURBISH £18,500 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 730 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £45,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,750 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £94,750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 16 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

PHOTOGRAPH TWELVE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 17 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.7 Unit 7 Photographs 13, 14

BUILDING TYPE Detached ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1960s CONSTRUCTION Fair faced blockwork external walls beneath a mono pitched roof covered with fibre cement profiled sheet cladding MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION Although the unit is quite old, it remains in a fair and useable condition. Nonetheless, it would benefit from an extensive refurbishment to achieve its full potential in terms of achieving full current market rental value. COSTS TO REFURBISH £45,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 730 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £45,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,750 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £94,750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 1 No. portacabin store 1 No. portacabin office both in poor condition

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 18 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTEEN

PHOTOGRAPH FOURTEEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 19 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.7 Unit 7A Photograph 15

BUILDING TYPE Detached ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1960s CONSTRUCTION Brick masonry perimeter walls beneath double pitched roof covered with fibre cement cladding. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building is generally in a poor and dilapidated state of repair. It is currently only used for storage purposes of building related materials. I do not consider the building to be suitable for any other purpose than for storage. The roof linings are covered with debris and moss and the attachments to the building including rainwater fittings, windows and doors etc. are all in weathered, decayed and in need of replacements COSTS TO REFURBISH £20,00 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 848 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £55,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £11,250 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £106,250 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 20 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH FIFTEEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 21 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.8 Unit 8 Photograph 16

BUILDING TYPE Detached building structure ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION Pre cast concrete frame with pre cast concrete cladding panels beneath a double pitched roof of fibre cement linings. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building is generally in a poor and dilapidated state of repair. It is currently only used for storage purposes of building related materials. I do not consider the building to be suitable for any other purpose than for storage. The roof linings are covered with debris and moss and the attachments to the building including rainwater fittings, windows and doors etc. are all in weathered, decayed and in need of replacements

COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 460 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £30,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £7,500 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £77,500 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 22 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH SIXTEEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 23 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.9 Unit 9 Photograph 17

BUILDING TYPE Detached unit ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION Steel frame finished with profiled fibre cement cladding to perimeter walls beneath a double pitched roof covered with fibre cement sheet lining panels. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity CONNECTED • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building is currently occupied and in use as a tooling and machine workshop. The building is in a deteriorated and weathered state of repair. It is in need of a complete refurbishment. However, I do not believe that it would be economic to refurbish the existing building structure to comply with current regulation standards. Instead, my costs shown below, allow for basic repair and refurbishment of the building to maximise its current market rental value. COSTS TO REFURBISH £28,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 800 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £48,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £10,200 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £98,200 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 24 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH SEVENTEEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 25 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.10 Unit 10 Photographs 18, 19

BUILDING TYPE Detached building ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1960s CONSTRUCTION Fair faced blockwork perimeter walls beneath a mono pitched roof covered with profiled metal cladding MAINS SERVICES CONNECTED • Gas Not connected • Electricity CONNECTED • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building is in a poor overall state of repair and dilapidated condition. The nature of the building construction and its layout, indicates that it would only be suitable for use as a basic workshop or for storage facilities. To achieve this, the building structure would require extensive refurbishment and repair. COSTS TO REFURBISH £20,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 590 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £36,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,900 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add for contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £85,900 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 26 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH EIGHTEEN

PHOTOGRAPH NINETEEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 27 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.11 Unit 11 Photographs 20, 21, 22, 23

BUILDING TYPE Open plan corner plot site with two building structures. On this site there is a scaffold tube metal framed structure finished with metal cladding. Separate portacabin. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION There is a scaffold tube metal framed structure to the front left hand corner. There is a separate portacabin office structure to the front right hand corner. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The scaffold framework and portacabin structures are both in a very poor condition and not suitable for purpose. These building structures will need to be dismantled and removed from the site to leave a clear open plan area. The site would then be suitable for redevelopment and construction of a new purpose built unit. The site would be suitable for development incorporating a larger footprint floor area than existing provision. My costs shown below allow for the construction of a similar sized unit. COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 690 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £45,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,750 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £40,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £114,750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 28 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY ONE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 29 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY TWO

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY THREE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 30 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.12 Unit 12 Photograph 24

BUILDING TYPE Detached industrial units x 2 No. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION Steel framed finished with profiled metal cladding outside walls and roofs. There is a tarmacadam yard at the front of the building for storage and parking purposes. There is a chain link fence with gates around the yard perimeter. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The main building structures are sound and in reasonable overall order. They are currently occupied by a car body repair workshop. The two buildings are nonetheless subject to general disrepair and deterioration from neglect. My costings include for attention to these matters in accordance with the tenants covenants I would expect to see in a full repairing lease which would bring the property up to a presentable overall state of repair and appearance suitable for a new incoming tenant and in an attempt to achieve full current market rental value. COSTS TO REFURBISH £55,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 2070 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £125,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £21,750 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £186,750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 31 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY FOUR

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 32 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.13 Unit 13 Photographs 25, 26

BUILDING TYPE Detached purpose built two storey building incorporating ground floor workshop and upper floor office accommodation. At the front of the building, is provided a large open plan yard for parking and storage purposes. This is laid to loose stone. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION The outside walls are of brick cavity construction beneath a double pitched roof. The ground floor area is of solid concrete and the first floor of suspended timber construction. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity CONNECTED • Water CONNECTED • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The building is currently unoccupied and I did not have access to internal parts. My external inspection around the perimeter of the building revealed the structure to be in reasonable repair. I consider that the building and the site around the building are in need of some maintenance including renewal of decorations and cutting back/killing off of vegetation. Costs for bringing the property to a good state of appearance and suitable for letting are as set out in my details below. COSTS TO REFURBISH £26,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS • Gross external floor area of 1725 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £128,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £22,200 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £190,200 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Metal framed shed

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 33 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY FIVE

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY SIX

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 34 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.14 Unit 14 Photograph 27

BUILDING TYPE Detached purpose built workshop. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION The main structure comprises steel portal frames and the outside walls are clad with profiled metal panels beneath a double pitched roof covered with profiled metal cladding panels. There is also a small lean-to attachment extension on the front of the building. There is an open plan yard at the front of the building finished to tarmacadam and granite chippings and is suitable for car parking. The building is currently occupied and used for car mechanic repairs. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The main building structure and cladding are weathered and deteriorated but suit the current occupants’ purposes. The building would benefit from general repairs, making good and refurbishment to bring it up to presentable condition suitable for achieving full market rental values. The details of these refurbishment costs are as set out below. COSTS TO REFURBISH £23,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 1540 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £100,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £18,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £183,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 35 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY SEVEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 36 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.15 Unit 15 Photographs 28, 20

BUILDING TYPE This site was locked at the time of my inspection and was guarded by a security dog. The buildings on this site appear to be of temporary nature in connection with the use of the site as a car breakers yard. ESTIMATEDCONSTRUCTION DATE Not known CONSTRUCTION Not known MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not known • Electricity Not known • Water Not known • Waste Drainage Not known CONDITION Not known

COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 1775 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £110,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £21,750 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £186,750 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 37 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY EIGHT

PHOTOGRAPH TWENTY NINE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 38 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.16 Unit 16 and 22 Photographs 30, 31

BUILDING TYPE This site is an open plan area used by the previous occupants for storage of skip hire equipment. There are two small buildings on the site which comprise metal framed and metal clad units and a small pre cast concrete panelled unit. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE Not known CONSTRUCTION Not known MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION Generally poor

COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 647 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £40,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £89,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Low Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 3 No. metal containers

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 39 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY ONE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 40 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.17 Unit 17 Photographs 32, 33

BUILDING TYPE Detached industrial unit ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1960s CONSTRUCTION Part metal steel framed with profiled metal cladding and part masonry construction with flat roof. There is an open plan yard and parking area around the perimeter of the building MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The main building is in a weathered and slightly deteriorated overall condition. It is currently tenanted and in daily use but only basic maintenance and repair has been carried out to the building structure and finishes. The building is in need of general maintenance, repair and decoration and my estimate of costs as set out below, are calculated on the basis that the current tenant complies with all obligations in terms of covenants under a full repairing lease COST TO REFURBISH £66,000 COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 4310 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £290,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £46,500 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £376,500 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 5 No. steel storage containers

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 41 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY TWO

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY THREE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 42 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.18 Unit 18 Photographs 34, 35

BUILDING TYPE Attached ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s (original mostly demolished and part rebuilt by present tenant) CONSTRUCTION Steel frame / metal clad MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION Generally poor COSTS TO REFURBISH £20,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 1715 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £110,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £16,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £166,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 1 No. portacabin

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 43 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY FOUR

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY FIVE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 44 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.19 Unit 19 (Site closed. No access available) Photographs 36, 37

BUILDING TYPE Detached store / workshop ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION Part pre cast concrete / part blockwork under double pitched metal clad roof MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not known • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION From my limited inspection, the yard and building are in general disrepair. The site is used for general storage purposes of scrap material and car parts etc. The site does not appear to be in regular use. COSTS TO REFURBISH £15,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 1007 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £65,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £9,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £114,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 1 No. portacabin

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 45 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY SIX

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY SEVEN

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 46 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.20 Units 20 and 20A Photograph 38

BUILDING TYPE Detached two storey purpose built office building with open plan car parking area and yard at front ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1970s CONSTRUCTION Brick cavity perimeter walls beneath a felt lined flat roof MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Connected • Water Connected • Waste Drainage Connected CONDITION The property is currently occupied and used as business office accommodation. It has been maintained to a basic standard by the occupants. My refurbishment costings as set out below, are calculated on the basis of the tenants obligations expected of a full repairing lease. COSTS TO REFURBISH £42,000 + fees @ 20% COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 2760 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £180,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £22,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £242,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 47 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY EIGHT

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 48 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.21 Unit 21 Photographs 39, 40, 41

BUILDING TYPE Detached unit on one floor level ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION The property is a metal framed structure finished with fibre cement cladding to the perimeter walls and roof covering. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Connected • Waste Drainage Connected (toilet block at front) CONDITION The building structure is in a very poor state of repair and overall condition. It remains unoccupied. I believe that the building as currently seen, would be uneconomic to repair or bring to a tenantable state of overall condition. COSTS TO REFURBISH Not applicable COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 2550 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £166,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £18,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £224,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from High Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials High Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS 1 No. portacabin

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 49 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH THIRTY NINE

PHOTOGRAPH FORTY

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 50 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH FORTY ONE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 51 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

4.22 Unit 23 Photographs 42, 43

BUILDING TYPE Detached metal framed open plan, open fronted building structure ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATE 1950s CONSTRUCTION The main supporting structure comprises steel portal frames beneath a double pitched roof covered with metal cladding. MAINS SERVICES • Gas Not connected • Electricity Not connected • Water Not connected • Waste Drainage Not connected CONDITION The steel frame structure and metal cladding are all in an extensive state of disrepair and advanced corrosion. The site is currently unoccupied and has been unoccupied for many years. The building as it currently stands, is uneconomic to repair or bring up to standards suitable for occupation by a tenant. The building is of no value and the site is only suitable for either redevelopment or use for storage purposes. My costings allowed herein, relate to my estimate of providing a new structure of a similar footprint area and suitable for the current rental market. COSTS TO REFURBISH Not applicable COSTS TO REDEVELOP • Gross external floor area of 3588 sq ft existing • Redevelopment cost building to £166,000 existing footprint and in compliance with building regulations • Add for costs for main services £20,000 connections (estimate) • Add for costs in connection with £24,000 professional fees and Local Authority Fees • Add contingency for cost of £20,000 decontaminating the land Sub Total £230,000 • Add for VAT where applicable SITE RISKS • Contamination of Land from Moderate Deleterious Materials e.g. oil • Asbestos Content of Materials Moderate Used in Construction • Flood Risk from Surface Water Moderate Run-off ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Not applicable

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 52 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

PHOTOGRAPH FORTY TWO

PHOTOGRAPH FORTY THREE

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 53 WDLP14 00699 West’s Yard, Saunderton, Buckinghamshire

5. OVERALL SITE COSTS

5.1 Costs of new buildings (construction plus fees estimated) £3,409,300.00 5.2 Costs of infrastructure (roads and access estimated) £200,000.00 5.3 Electricity Included 5.4 Water Included 5.5 Waste drainage Included 5.6 Surface water drainage Included 5.7 Cost of landscaping £50,000.00 5.8 Professional fees in connection with development of the site Included including Local Authority fees 5.9 Total £3,659,300.00 5.10 Plus VAT where applicable

These costs are based on:-

1. Demolition of existing structures and clearing of the site. 2. Construction of new light industrial / commercial units to current building regulation standards. 3. A provisional assessment of costs to renew / resupply main services to the site (electricity / water / drainage) on the presumption that existing capacities are adequate. 4. There is no extra over provision for contingency for extraordinary measures which might be needed to clear heavily contaminated soil from the site (e.g. from oil). 5. Costs indicated are for guidance only. Actual contractors’ tender costs will vary to some degree from those shown.

6. SUMMARY

6.1 The buildings are in various states and stages of disrepair and decay. Only very minimal and basic maintenance has been implemented over the last thirty to forty years and the site is now at a stage where it would be appropriate to demolish the existing buildings and build new structures. However, the nature of the site and the market, suggests that it might be more appropriate and economic for a change of use to residential or a mix of residential with industrial.

Charles Mallard MRICS

Aston Building Surveyors North View Barn 1 Albert Street AYLESBURY Buckinghamshire HP20 1LY

21st August 2013

CM/GH/5058.1.doc Page 54

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX VII HAWES GROUP LETTER

WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX VIII NONFUMO LETTER

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX IX WYCOMBE ECONOMY STUDY PROFORMA

WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX X SITE WIDE MARKETING

WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX XI INDIVIDUAL UNIT MARKETING

WDLP14 00699

Appendix 2 – Duncan & Bailey Kennedy marketing particulars for available accommodation within West’s Yard

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX XII WEDLAKE BELL LETTER

WDLP14 00699

Date 14 February 2014 FAO: Chris Higgins (Development Manager) Your ref Dandara Limited Our ref DEB/DAN/0064/00024/CLOD KD Tower Cotterells Direct Dial +44 (0)20 7406 1665 Hemel Hempstead Direct Fax +44 (0)20 7406 1601 HP1 1FW Email [email protected]

Dear Sirs West's Yard, Saunderton

Further to your request, we write to confirm that we hold completed Deeds of Surrender entered into with the tenants as follows:-

 Deed of Surrender dated 24 December 2013 entered into between (1) Saunderton Estates Limited and (2) Non Fumo Flue Systems Limited in respect of Units 7a, 8, 17 and 20/20a West's Yard, Saunderton;

 Deed of Surrender dated 7 January 2013 made between (1) Saunderton Estates Limited and (2) Hawes Plant and Tool Hire Limited in respect of Units 15,16,22 and 23 West's Yard, Saunderton. In light of the above, we can confirm that the tenants entered into voluntary surrender arrangements and vacated the properties accordingly. Yours faithfully

WEDLAKE BELL LLP

Enc

WB1\8348638\1

52 Bedford Row London WC1R 4LR | Tel +44 (0)20 7395 3000 | Fax +44 (0)20 7395 3100 DX 166 London Chancery Lane | www.wedlakebell.com

Wedlake Bell LLP is a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales with registered number OC351980. Associated offices Wedlake Bell LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 533172. Its registered office and principal throughout Europe place of business is at 52 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4LR. A list of members may be inspected at this address. The term ‘Partner’ is used to refer to a member of Wedlake Bell LLP

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX XIII DANDARA VERSION OF PBA APPRAISAL

WDLP14 00699

Development Value no of units size sq m rent Yield Value per unit Capital Value light industrial 8 357 £65 9% £257,833.33 £2,062,666.67

void 24 months £371,280.00

rent free 3 months £46,410.00

Adjusted for void and rent free £1,644,976.67

less 4%

£1,581,708.33

Development Costs site value £1,394,799.05

purchasers costs 5.75%

£1,475,000.00

Build Costs no of units size sq m cost/ sq m light industrial 8 357 £483.00 12800 sq ft £1,379,448.00

Externals as a percentage of build cost 85% £1,172,530.80

Demolition £250,000.00

£1,422,530.80

Professional Fees as a percentage of build cost & externals 8% £224,158.30

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS £3,026,137.10

Contingency as a percentage of construction costs 5% £151,306.86

Sales Costs

Marketing £15,000 £15,000

Letting Agent 10% of rent £18,564.00

Letting legals 5% of rent £9,282.00 sale agent fee 1% Capital Value £20,626.67 sale legal fees 0.75% Capital Value £15,470.00

£78,943

Policy Costs

CIL 0 £0

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS INCLUDING LAND PAYMENT £4,731,386.63

Developers Profit -214.37% -£3,390,642.09

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (EXCLUDING INTEREST) £4,731,386.63

TOTAL INCOME - TOTAL COSTS (EXCLUDING INTEREST) £240,963.80

Finance Costs APR 6.50% -£307,540.13

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (INCLUDING INTEREST) £1,581,708.33

WDLP14 00699

APPENDIX XIV LETTER FROM FORMER UNIT 3 OCCUPIER

WDLP14 00699 WDLP14 00699

Development Value no of units size sq m rent Yield Value per unit Capital Value light industrial 8 357 £65 9% £257,833.33 £2,062,666.67

void 24 months £371,280.00

rent free 3 months £46,410.00

Adjusted for void and rent free £1,644,976.67

less 4%

£1,581,708.33

Development Costs site value £1,394,799.05

purchasers costs 5.75%

£1,475,000.00

Build Costs no of units size sq m cost/ sq m light industrial 8 357 £483.00 12800 sq ft £1,379,448.00

Externals as a percentage of build cost 85% £1,172,530.80

Demolition £250,000.00

£1,422,530.80

Professional Fees as a percentage of build cost & externals 8% £224,158.30

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS £3,026,137.10

Contingency as a percentage of construction costs 5% £151,306.86

Sales Costs

Marketing £15,000 £15,000

Letting Agent 10% of rent £18,564.00

Letting legals 5% of rent £9,282.00 sale agent fee 1% Capital Value £20,626.67 sale legal fees 0.75% Capital Value £15,470.00

£78,943

Policy Costs

CIL 0 £0

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS INCLUDING LAND PAYMENT £4,731,386.63

Developers Profit -214.37% -£3,390,642.09

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (EXCLUDING INTEREST) £4,731,386.63

TOTAL INCOME - TOTAL COSTS (EXCLUDING INTEREST) £240,963.80

Finance Costs APR 6.50% -£307,540.13

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (INCLUDING INTEREST) £1,581,708.33 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 For official use only

Options Consultation on the Wycombe District Local Plan February 2014

Response Form to the Consultation Document

Responses must be submitted to Wycombe District Council by Friday 4 April 2014.

To respond online please add your details and comments in the relevant answer boxes.

Responses can be submitted by email to [email protected] or sent by post to: Planning Policy Team - Wycombe District Council Freepost HY120 Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe HP11 1BR

You can submit as many comments as you would like.

PART A – Your Details

1. Personal Details Title Mr First Name D Surname Bond

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant) Woolf Bond Planning

Address The Mitfords Basingstoke Road

Three Mile Cross Reading

Postcode RG7 1AT

Telephone Number

Email Address

WDLP14 00700

2. Client Details (please complete if you are representing a client or a specific site interest) Site Interest Land at Northern Heights, Bourne End

Client Name Millgate Homes

Client Address c/o Agent

Postcode

Telephone Number

Email Address

3. How did you hear about this consultation? Council stakeholder notifications.

Please tick this box if you wish to be notified of future stages of the new Local X Plan, including further consultations, Submission, Examination and Adoption

Please tick this box if you wish to receive our electronic Weekly Planning Bulletin X which gives you updates on local and national Planning matters

WDLP14 00700 PART B – Please submit your comments using the form below.

Name or Organisation: Woolf Bond Planning

1. To which part of the Plan does this comment relate? . It is essential that under the first heading (Reference) you identify which part of the consultation report you are commenting on, e.g.:  the whole document  chapter (e.g. chapter 4)  Option (e.g. option 2)  paragraph (e.g. para 5.2.64)  consultation question (e.g. Question 25)  appendix (e.g. appendix 3)  Sustainability Appraisal

2. Are you supporting or objecting? Let us know for each comment if you are supporting or objecting what we have written: you could be supporting one option but not another.

3. Comments You can submit as many comments as you want. Simply expand the table below or use further sheets.

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Chapter/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Option/ Supporting / Consultation Objecting Question/ etc. Question 4 - Comments set out in supporting letter.

Question 16 - Comments set out in supporting letter.

Question 17 - Comments set out in supporting letter.

WDLP14 00700 New Local Plan Comments – continued……

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Policy ID/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Consultation Supporting / Question/ etc Objecting

WDLP14 00700 New Local Plan Comments – continued……

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Policy ID/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Consultation Supporting / Question/ etc Objecting

WDLP14 00700 New Local Plan Comments – continued……

1. Reference: 2. Are you 3. Comments Policy ID/ supporting or Paragraph No./ objecting? Consultation Supporting / Question/ etc Objecting

WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700 WDLP14 00700

m k 1

1 3 2 5 9 7 6

Key

Land off Northern Heights

1. Secondary school and sixth form 2. Primary school 3. Primary (special) school 4. Bourne End railway station 5. Library 6. Pharmacy 7. Doctor's surgery 8. Dentist 9. Supermarket Shopping parade Employment area