19 apartments at 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe

The site

The site contained a dwelling with front parking, a front garden and a tiered rear garden, opposite but outside the Wycombe Abbey Conservation Area.

“Receive further information and detail in an executive summary of the viability appraisal (or alternatively an appropriately redacted version of the viability appraisal) which concluded that neither an on-site affordable housing contribution nor a financial contribution in lieu would be viable.”

“The application site lies opposite, but outside, the Wycombe Abbey Conservation Area and falls within Residential Parking Zone A (Abbey). It is also within 15m of a designated biological/geological site located on the hillside behind Wycombe General Hospital. During the process, the applicant submitted a viability appraisal and a subsequent addendum as well as a soil analysis report.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The scheme provided policy-compliant parking, while viability evidence showed that affordable housing contributions were not financially viable.

“Affordable Housing and Housing Mix Wycombe District Local Plan (August 2019): DM22 (Housing Mix), DM24 (Affordable Housing), DM41 (Optional Technical Standards for Building Regulations Approval) Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (POSPD) 4.6 Policy DM24 of the WDLP requires developments of 10 or more dwellings to provide on-site affordable housing equating to at least 35% of the total number of units.”

“The Council’s assessor reviewed the updated evidence and agreed with the applicant that the scheme cannot viably support any affordable housing contribution. In summary, the proposal does not comply with Policy DM24, as it makes no on-site provision. However, the independent viability assessment demonstrates that neither on-site provision nor a commuted sum in lieu can be secured without adversely affecting the overall viability of the scheme.”

Officer report

Advice from consultees

Highways, Thames Water, ecology, environmental health, drainage and conservation consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Tree Officer objected to tree loss.

“Tree Officer: Cannot support in current form. Having viewed the available plans and the tree report attached to it, we find we cannot support the application in its current form. The application if approved would see the removal of several high amenity trees. As no statutory protection by way of preservation order or by being sited in a conservation area is relevant for the trees here, a preservation order covering all trees on the entire site has been made.”

“Strategic Environmental Health Team: No objection, subject to conditions securing an acoustic report, external lighting details, electric vehicle charging and an Environmental Controls Construction Phase scheme.”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections concerned parking, traffic, accessibility, design, scale, neighbour impacts, pollution, drainage, affordable housing, trees, wildlife and possible precedent.

“Representations (summarised) 13 comments have been received objecting to the proposal: • Affordable housing is required • Out of keeping design • Proposed scale does not relate to surrounding buildings • Building mass and form is alien • Material palette is more akin to an industrial development, rather than residential • Crammed in development • Very small apartments • 19 parking spaces proposed; Local Authority parking calculator suggests 21 spaces required.”

“Vehicles habitually speed past the proposed access at non-peak times, making access to/ egress from the site hazardous to both residents and visitors to the site and to traffic using the northbound carriageway of Marlow Hill. Vehicle Parking The proposed provision of 19 parking spaces for residents only, together with 10 cycle bays, is substandard.”

Officer report

Who spoke

There was no public speaking, but Councillor Lesley Clarke OBE spoke as the ward member at the Chairman’s discretion.

Committee consideration

The application had been deferred previously, and a site visit had taken place before the committee considered it again.

“As the application had been deferred from the March meeting, only the following members who were also present at that meeting, and so in attendance for the consideration of the application in its entirety were eligible to take part in the vote: Councillors A Alam, I Hussain, F Kneller, S K Raja, L Townsend and M West.”

“This application was subject to a site visit in March 2026.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor L Townsend proposed granting permission and Councillor I Hussain seconded the proposal.

“It was proposed by Councillor L Townsend and seconded by Councillor I Hussain…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

“In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of this resolution (such as to delete, vary or add conditions or informatives) prior to the decision being issued, authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Environment in consultation with the Chairman to make these, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee’s resolution.”

Minutes