57 homes at Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and yard structures and building 57 homes with access, open space, landscaping and drainage.

“Yard area which includes a number of structures and storage area for machinery and vehicles • Paddock and a field 2.2 The site is part greenfield and part previously developed, with the former being the majority. Description of proposed development 3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of an existing dwelling and all other structures and erection of 57 new homes together with open space, landscaping and drainage works.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history, although pre-application discussions took place and other housing schemes had been approved or remained under consideration nearby.

“The application is accompanied by: a) Planning Statement b) Design and Access Statement c) Archaeological Desk Based Assessment d) Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy e) Foul Drainage Statement f) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment g) Landscaping Strategy h) Tree Canopy calculator i) Transport Statement j) Travel Plan k) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal l) Biodiversity Statement, metric and gain plan m) Energy and Sustainability Statement n) Arboricultural…”

“It should be noted that there have been a number of planning permissions for residential schemes within Longwick which are housing allocations within the neighbourhood plan. These include: • Land on the eastern side of Thame Road, leading around to Bar Lane (L1) • Land at Boxer Road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal without a legal agreement, but said the refusal reason would fall away if an agreement secured affordable housing and infrastructure during the appeal.

“However, the appellant has indicated that they intend to enter into a legal agreement to secure the following: • Affordable housing • Public open space • Public transport services/infrastructure • Travel plan monitoring fee • Primary education • Healthcare/NHS • Biodiversity net gain 1.8 As such, if a satisfactory legal agreement can be agreed as part of the appeal, then the minded to refuse reason would fall away and the appeal would not be contested, subject to the…”

Officer report

The main planning balance

Officers gave significant weight to 57 homes and other benefits, but also significant weight to missing affordable housing and infrastructure obligations.

“Limited negative weight is attributed to the harm arising from the conflict with the spatial policies of the development plan. Significant negative weight is attributed to the failure to secure on site provision of affordable housing given the identified extent of need for affordable homes.”

“Conclusion on planning balance 6.21 The scheme would deliver planning benefits most notably its contribution to housing land supply in a relatively sustainable location. There are undoubted significant benefits from the scheme’s contribution to housing land supply but these would not be outweighed by the harm of permitting new homes that would not be supported by necessary infrastructure and the provision of affordable housing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward member, a parish council representative, the local MP, three objectors and the agent spoke to the committee.

The committee’s concerns

The committee considered the development an unplanned expansion beyond Longwick’s settlement boundary and found its harms outweighed its benefits despite the housing shortfall.

“The proposed development by reason of its location outside of the defined settlement boundary of Longwick would result in the unplanned expansion of built development into the countryside on land not allocated for residential development. The proposal would undermine the planned approach to growth established by the Wycombe District Local Plan and the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan.”

“The development would be contrary to CP2 (Overall Spatial Strategy), CP3 (Settlement Strategy), CP7 (Delivering Infrastructure to Support Growth), CP10 (Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment), CP12 (Climate Change), DM21 (Location of New Housing), DM22 (Housing Mix), DM24 (Affordable Housing), DM33 (Managing Carbon Emissions: Transport and Energy Generation), DM34 (Delivering Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity in Development), DM35 (Placemaking and Design…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor C Harriss proposed refusal and Councillor M Turner seconded it; the committee resolved that permission was minded to be refused.

“It was proposed by Councillor C Harriss, and seconded by Councillor M Turner…”

“Resolved: That planning permission was minded to be refused on the following grounds (detailed further in the decision notice):”

Minutes