Six-bed replacement dwelling at 69 Marlow Road, High Wycombe

The site and earlier plans

An approved replacement dwelling was built differently, extending three metres further into the site and including a raised rear patio.

“Having weighed the benefits of this proposal against the harm to the amenities of adjacent residents, and applied a tilted balance, the benefits of this development are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts and provide a clear reason for refusal. Cllr Lesley Clarke and Cllr Mahboob Hussain have called this application in for consideration by committee if officers are minded to recommend refusal.”

“The approved plans show that the replacement dwelling would be sited in a similar position of the plot as the existing dwelling; would be larger in scale, brick built with a crown roof and hipped to all sides. A two storey front gable and single storey front and rear projections were also permitted with the approved ground floor level extending further backwards into the rear of the plot by approximately 3 metres.”

Officer report

Planning and enforcement history

Earlier applications included an approved replacement dwelling, a refused retrospective application and an enforcement notice requiring demolition or alterations.

“Householder application for construction of two storey front entrance extension, two storey front, side and rear extension, roof alterations and raising of roof height to create habitable room in roof space with roof lights REF 26 May 2022 22/06895/FUL”

“Construction of 1 x 6-bed detached dwelling, creation of 3 x parking spaces and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling (alternative scheme to pp 22/06895/FUL) (part retrospective) REF 21 March 2025 4.0 Policy Considerations and Evaluation Principle and Location of Development 4.1 The application site is situated within the High Wycombe Settlement Area – a Tier 1 settlement where the provision of new development is directed.”

Officer report

What people said

One adjacent resident objected over light, overshadowing, report accuracy, the patio and outlook, while four residents supported the proposal.

“I would like to attend the meeting, and I would like to hear the discussion of my colleagues on the Planning Committee and speak if it's possible Consultation Responses Enforcement Officer: None received. Representations Amenity Societies/Residents Associations None received. Other Representations One letter of objection has been received from an adjacent resident.”

“Development is not in a conservation area; will not flood and has enough parking. Furthermore, development will not result in loss of privacy or loss of light. • Why is taxpayers money being wasted on this witch hunt against a highly respected law abiding member of the community who has been subjected to persecution by the gutter press and other elements for reasons of jealousy and envy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two ward members spoke, and a representative spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The committee vote

Members voted for refusal in line with the officer’s recommendation after a site visit and consideration of an update.

“This application was the subject of a site visit.”

“Members voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application, in line with the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes