Planning Committee - Meeting Minutes
Monday 19th January 2026
Table Of Contents
Introduction
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 19 JANUARY 2026 AT 7.30PM IN THE LIONEL RIGBY ROOM AT THE VILLAGE CENTRE, ROGERS LANE, STOKE POGES, SL2 4LP.
Present: Cllr Carter (Chair), Cllr Bassi, Cllr Crocker, Cllr Finan, Mr Harris and Cllr Wilson.
In Attendance: Mrs J Simmonds (Clerk)
Also Present: Cllr Dhillon and three members of public.
Agenda Items
102/PL/26 Items by Members of Public Present.
The meeting is open to the public and press, and the first 15 minutes will be reserved, if required, for public comment on items on this agenda only.
Two members of the public asked about Stoke Court and what was happening and whether Grays Walk would be opening. Councillors agreed to contact Comer Homes and find our what was happening and get back to the residents.
103/PL/26 Apologies for Absence and Acceptance.
None
104/PL/26 Declarations of Interest
Members to declare any personal interest in any item of business as defined in the Code of Conduct 2007. If that interest is a prejudicial interest as defined in the Code, the member should withdraw from the meeting for that item.
None
105/PL/26 Minutes
RESOLVED to approve the Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on 8 December 2025, which were signed by the Chair.
106/PL/26 Planning Applications
(i) RESOLVED to approve delegated decisions submitted for Planning Applications for which the response date was prior to this Committee Meeting. See Appendix 1.
(ii) RESOLVED to consider and formulate a response to new Planning Applications received. See Appendix 2. Plus, amended plans for information only.
107/PL/26 NOTED Planning Decisions, Enforcements and Appeals.
District Decisions made since the last Planning Committee Meeting. See Appendix 3.
108/PL/26 Councillors/Members Update
None.
109/PL/26 Buckinghamshire Council Complaints Procedure
Update from last meeting after link was re-sent to everyone to read on 19 November 2025. Not discussed as out of time, bring back.
110/PL/26 Correspondence.
None
111/PL/26 Exclusion of the Press & Public
Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 RESOLVEDto exclude the press and public from the following business because publicity would prejudice the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business. Part two items: To discuss any possible unlawful buildings or business’s which have not been granted enforcement notices and therefore are not public.
112/PL/26 NOTED Outstanding Enforcements See Appendix 4.
113/PL/26 NOTED Next meeting date: 16 February 2026
Meeting ended at 9.35pm
APPENDIX 1
DELEGATED COMMENTS
APPENDIX 2
NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
PL/25/5836/TP 34 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4ER
Oak (T40) - to reduce the crown of the oak by 2m in height and 1.5m in width. (TPO/SBDC/2003/12).
Parish Comments: No Comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
PL/25/5111/FA 98 Hazell Way, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4DG
Demolition of existing conservatory and construction of single storey rear extension.
Parish Comments: This application has already been determined even though we asked for an extension for comments until 20 January and the portal says extension granted to 26 January for comments. We do not understand why it was determined so quickly, without comments, please advise.
PL/25/4894/FA Land North Of, Templewood Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire.
Erection of 18no. residential dwellings (including 9no. affordable housing) with parking, amenity and open space.
Amendment to description to include reference to the scheme incorporating 2 vehicular accesses:
Proposal for a residential development comprising 18 dwellings served by two vehicular accesses together with parking, amenity and open space
Parish Comments:
The Parish Council objects to the above planning application. The proposal concerns land designated as Green Belt, lying in the northern part of Stoke Poges.
The application seeks to justify this development within the green belt by referring to the land as grey belt. The Parish Council disputes this reference classification as we do not believe that it meets the 5 golden rules and neither have exceptional circumstances been demonstrated. Therefore, any development will be inappropriate.
The site is an open field that is currently and historically been used as pasture grazing land. This area forms a clear and open break that checks urban sprawl. This land performs Green Belt functions by safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserving its setting.
The Parish Council considers that:
• The site is Green Belt land and has not been shown to be grey belt.
• The application has not demonstrated that development in this location is “not inappropriate”
• The very special circumstances tests applied to Green Belt sites are not demonstrated.
• General housing need, including affordable housing need, is not unique to this site and does not
outweigh Green Belt harm.
• Statements that indicate that harm would be limited rely on future reserved matters and therefore
cannot be given weight at outline stage.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that any harm caused will outweigh the definitional harm to the function of Green Belt and additional harm arising from loss of openness. Applications on this site would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Policies:
GB1, EP3, H9, TR5 & TR7
NPPF Page 21 Policy 78 – Reference our NP and actual stipulated areas.
NPPF – Flood policy 170 – Along with Local Knowledge.
NPPF Risk based approach policy 172, (a), (b), (c) & (d).
NPPF policy 189 and 190 – Landscape
CP9 Local Plan.
No mention or reference to Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan
SPNP: LB03 Boundary Treatments applies. LB05 – Housing Mix applies. CA5. SP12 Dark Skies.
Objections submitted by City of London and Natural England in respect of the site being situated approximately 1947m from Burnham Beeches SAC and 280m from Stoke Common SSSI. Concerns about the effect this proposal will have on the amenity and the value for wildlife of the neighbouring Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common, both in isolation and on a cumulative basis with an increase in noise, light and disturbance to natural habitat
Site Location and History:
2018 planning application: PL/18/3787/OA was submitted for siting of 8 gypsy and traveller pitches. The application was refused by Buckinghamshire Council as the proposed use of the land as a residential caravan site for gypsies/ travellers is inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved where there is a case of very special circumstances which clearly outweighs this harm. No case of very special circumstances has been made which clearly outweighs the harm to the Green Belt. As such, the proposed development would conflict with the principle aim of protecting the openness and permanence of the Green Belt and is contrary to The South Bucks District Local Plan (Adopted March 1999 Consolidated September 2007 and February 2011) saved policy GB1, paragraphs 133, 134 and 143-146 of the National Planning Policy Framework - July 2018 and Policy E of the PPTS - August 2015.
The applicant went through the appeals process: Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/20/3244183
The appeal is dismissed but concluded:
The effect on the character and appearance of the area is a concern that has been raised by several interested parties. I have therefore included this as a main issue because I have enough information before me to reach a view and the appellant has provided submissions on this point. Therefore, the main issues in this appeal are:
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate for development in the Green Belt;
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and
If the proposal would be inappropriate in development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Reasons: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate for development in the Green Belt. However, Policy GB1 of the South Bucks District Local Plan 1999 (LP) states that planning permission will be granted for development involving the change of use of land when it would not compromise the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and permanently retain its open undeveloped character. Aspects of Policy GB1 are broadly consistent with Paragraph 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), which postdates the PPTS and states that the material change of use of land in the Green Belt would Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/20/3244183 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate not be inappropriate development provided it would preserve openness and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.
The appeal site is currently a small field, the boundaries of which are broadly defined by hedging. There is a stable block and small timber structures in one corner and fencing in the middle. However, the site is otherwise free from development and rural and open in appearance. It also forms a break in the residential development along the northern side of the road.
The proposed pitches would each have a hard standing, mobile home and are likely to include vehicles such as touring caravans. There may also be amenity buildings and space for a garden. An internal road would be required to provide access to the pitches. The proposal would also generate significantly more comings and goings and general activity than the current use of the site as somewhere to turn horses out for grazing. The proposal would therefore significantly erode the openness of the Green Belt by introducing development onto land that is currently a largely undeveloped meadow.
During my site visit I did not observe the presence of an existing caravan. The appellant has not established that a caravan for permanent occupation has planning permission at the site or that one can be lawfully stationed there. Accordingly, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposal would amount to an intensification of a residential use or the expansion of an existing traveller site. Moreover, even if there were a mobile home on the site then the proposal would still be a significant intensification as it would span the width of the meadow. The appeal scheme’s effect on openness would therefore be considerably greater than a single caravan.
The appeal site adjoins several domestic properties and there is further residential development in Stoke Wood and further along Templewood Lane. Nevertheless, it has a rural character due to its current use and verdant appearance. It therefore has a visual affinity and spatial continuity with the woodland, hedge lined meadows, paddocks and allotments to the south of the road and along Driffield Lane. Moreover, the residential development nearby is sporadic and subservient to the overarching rural character of the area centered on Templewood Lane broadly east of Farnham Common and north of Stoke Poges. Consequently, the appeal scheme would result in an encroachment of development into the countryside and therefore it would undermine one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt listed in the Framework.
In conclusion, the proposal would significantly erode the openness of the Green Belt and undermine one of the purposes of including land in it. Thus, when applying Policy GB1 of the LP, the Framework and the PPTS the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. The effect on the character and appearance of the area.
As already set out, the appeal site has a rural character despite the nearby presence of sporadic residential development. It is an overstatement to suggest the appeal site is in an urban framework. The site’s open, verdant and undeveloped appearance contributes positively to the character of the surrounding countryside which, although fragmented, is defined by a mosaic of extensive woodland cover, small paddocks, fields, meadows and commons.
The appeal scheme would involve the siting of eight mobile homes with the associated domestic paraphernalia this would entail, including parked vehicles. The pitches would also incorporate hard standings which would be linked to an internal loop road. The combined effect of this would be an urban intrusion that would meaningfully alter the nature of the appeal site from a rural meadow to that of residential development. This would harmfully dilute the positive contribution the appeal site currently makes to the rural character and appearance of the countryside. The impact would be localised, however.
By their nature the pitches would appear very different to the existing houses nearby, but this would be tempered to an extent by the linear layout, which would respond to the orientation of the dwellings either side. That said, the site is too large for the scheme to be considered a form of natural infilling. In this respect the proposal would appear as a strident addition to the area.
The mobile homes could be clad in timber or finished in dark colours. This may reduce their prominence, particularly if combined with landscaping. However, it would be very difficult to successfully soften the entire development, which is likely to including touring caravans, and the other domestic paraphernalia and activity. Therefore, the development overall would still be prominent regardless of how the exterior of the mobile homes are treated or finished.
Hard landscaping would be inappropriate as a means of screening the development because it would create a sense of separation and isolation. However, there is an existing hedgerow along the Templewood Lane frontage of the appeal site and this would provide some softening. However, it is very gappy and therefore the appeal scheme would still be highly prominent in localised views from the road despite the mobile homes being single-storey and spaciously arranged. 20. Additional landscaping could be used to assist in further softening the visual impact of the proposal, but the pitches would be close to the road and visible along the site entrances. Landscaping would also take time to mature. Accordingly, additional soft landscaping would not soften the overall impact to the point where the proposal did not appear strident and out of place.
In conclusion, the proposal would moderately harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Paragraph 127 of the Framework, which seeks to secure proposals that are sympathetic to local character. The imposition of planning conditions would not address this harm.
The Council’s Ecology Officer also raised concerns regarding the effect
of the proposal on biodiversity and no response appears to have been received from the highway authority. It is also unclear to what extent land contamination has been considered. The Council does not appear to have considered any of these points. I would therefore need to see further evidence before arriving at conclusions on these technical matters. However, given my overall conclusion it has not been necessary to seek this information in this instance or reach findings on the other concerns raised by interested parties.
Planning Balance - Whether there would be very special circumstances 30. Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the Framework set out the general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
I have concluded that the appeal schemes would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. The appeal schemes would also result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 144 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would moderately harm the character and appearance of the area.
Green belt Verses Grey Belt:
Proposals on land defined as “grey belt” needs to pass tests to be deemed not
appropriate as per §155 NPPF.
Is the site in a sustainable location?
The nearest railway stations are Slough Station and Gerrards Cross Station.
Slough Station: By car 2.98 miles. By foot: 50-60 minutes. Bus: Takes approx. 30 minutes. The nearest bus stop is 400m away. Bus times start at 8.23am and 2 hours apart thereafter. Return buses typically run until 18.10 but do not always run all the way to Stoke Poges.
Saturday the bus runs at fewer intervals and finishes at approx. 16.55. Sunday, no bus service.
Gerrards Cross Station: By Car 4 miles. On foot: 60 minutes. Bus: Takes approx; 30 minutes. Bus times start at 6.53and run every 2-3 hours throughout the day until 19.25. The last return bus is 19.25.
This site is therefore not considered to be sustainably located for active travel as whilst there is some direct access to limited public transport it is a heavily car-dependent community. The PPG states: For the purpose of these decisions, where grey belt land is not in a location that is or
can be made sustainable, development on this land is inappropriate. (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID:64-011-20250225).
This site is not considered sustainable and as such the proposal should be refused as inappropriate. Existing evidence shows that current dwellings within the vicinity already rely on cars as demonstrated by the lack of off-road parking mainly due to some of the cottages having insufficient frontages to accommodate off street parking and an increase in smaller dwellings being extended into larger dwellings accommodating larger households, therefore an increase in cars that need to park. This has led to an increase in pavement parking as Templewood Lane is a narrow road, meaning pedestrians need to walk in the road to pass parked cars. There are no streetlights in Templewood Lane as the village is considered semi-rural by nature.
Access to local infrastructure such as local shops, schools and the doctor’s surgery by foot are largely reached on roads that do not have any pavements. Therefore, we do not believe that development in this part of the village to be viable or sustainable.
Does the site provide for the “Golden Rules”?
§156 NPPF “Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land ….on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, the following contributions (‘Golden
Rules’) should be made:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in
paragraph 157 below.
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
As such, there is insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the 50% affordable housing
offered in the DAS has been secured and suggests a cascade mechanism in the S106 to provide a degree of flexibility, this does not reassure the relevant authorities that this commitment can be met.
The application does not identify specific infrastructure deficits arising from the development relies on standardised contributions, rather than targeted mitigation. There is no evidence that education, health, transport or utilities capacity would be adequately improved to support extra dwellings. As such, Golden Rule (a) is not met.
It is noted that there is no clear evidence to support and agreement for a financial contribution. We believe the applicationwillimpact on primary health care infrastructure and educational placements, we believe there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional patients. For the avoidance of doubt, the impact of this development cannot be absorbed by the nearby GP Practices.
Flooding/ Water:
The Parish Council wishes to highlight that the existing houses suffer with regular flooding that travels from Stoke Common down into Templewood Lane. Residents often have to use sandbags to keep flooding at bay. Flooding at nearby Stoke Common is a regular occurrence leading to road surface damage.
Housing Need:
There is demonstrable unmet need for the development proposal. It is accepted that Buckinghamshire Council’s published Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement indicates the delivery supply is well below the required 5 years (stated as 0.91 years). As a result,
substantial weight is given to the proposal on the basis of unmet need. However, the Parish Council contends that general housing need, including affordable housing need, is not unique to this site and in any event does not outweigh Green Belt harm caused by the proposal. The Parish Council has clearly laid out in its Neighbourhood Plan suitable sites for development that do not harm surrounding green belts that is near in proximity to existing infrastructure that would lessen the need for reliance on cars and encourage residents to be able to walk.
Boost to Public Services:
The applicant has made no positive reference to contributions to local infrastructure, schools, doctors surgeries or biodiversity net gains. We believe that the increase in population will have a negative effect.
Green Space:
The applicant has not demonstrated how they will positively contribute to green spaces or enhance existing green spaces and for parks and woodlands protecting vital nature spots.
As we do not believe that the application can overcome the golden rules and having established the site is not grey belt, we do not believe this to be appropriate development. Consideration must also be given to §153 NPPF which states:
When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
The application site is currently open, undeveloped land which makes a clear contribution to the
openness of the Green Belt clearly demonstrated. The proposal would introduce built form, associated infrastructure and activity into this open area, resulting in a permanent and irreversible loss of spatial openness.
Please note that the applicant frequently refers to the Slough Local Plan, which is irrelevant as Stoke Poges is located in Buckinghamshire and has stated above has its own Neighbourhood Plan.
PL/25/6625/PAPCR Sefton Park, Bells Hill, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire.
Prior Notification under Class MA of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for change of use from commercial, business and service (Use Class E) to 1 residential dwellinghouse (Use Class C3).
Parish Comments: No Comment.
PL/26/00131/TP 5 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4ER.
T4 and T5, Pine - Fell. (TPO/SBDC/2003/13).
Parish Comments: We object to two healthy trees that have TPO’s on them being felled for no reason. Neither are close to the house or cars as stated.
It is considered that this tree does not pose a significant risk of harm and the application to fell it has not been properly justified. The trees have amenity and ecological value and its retention is justified. To feel the tree would therefore be contrary to policy L10 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).
PL/26/00108/KA Little Mount , Duffield Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4AA.
T1 Apple - Reduce height by 1m (Stoke Poges West End Conservation Area).
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
AMENDED PLANS
PLANS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
TREE PRESEERVATION ORDER
NOTED APPENDIX 3
PLANNING DECISIONS
PL/25/3656/FA Ouroam, Templewood Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4AN
The demolition of the existing garage and part of existing rear extension followed by the construction of a two-storey side/single storey rear extension, with alterations to the implemented porch constructed under planning permission PL/25/0060/FA to be completed with a pitched roof and matching finishing materials
Parish Comments: No Comment
Hereby Permits
PL/25/4081/FA 1 Mobbs Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4FF
Single storey side extension with internal alterations.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the tree officer report.
Hereby Permits
PL/25/4289/TP The Forge, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PG
T1 Lime - Fell due to two Ganoderma Bracket, one old one at the front of the tree and a large one at the rear.
Parish Comments: No objection subject to the tree officer report.
Hereby Grants Consent.
PL/25/4122/FA Holly Tree House , West End Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LZ
Householder application for construction of single storey ground floor rear extension to the main house, first floor rear gable roof conversion with dormer window to the main house, reconstruction of the existing garage with dormer window, construction of a garden annexe linked to the main house and redecoration of the existing brickwork to the main house.
Parish Comments: No Comment.
Hereby Permits
PL/25/4575/KA Framewood Nursery, Hollybush Hill, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4QN
Works to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). T1. Large multi stem Ash tree - To fell - Reason - 2 x stems with low included union, tree has ash die back disease and has a heavy lean close to house. T2. Small Ash tree - To fell - Reasons - tree has ash die back disease.
Parish Comments: Insufficient and accurate information has not been submitted with the application and therefore it is not possible for the Parish Council to assess properly the merits of the proposal. Specifically, the applications failed to include accurate or precise drawings of all the elements of the proposed tree works. As such, the drawings are incomplete and the impacts of the proposed works cannot be properly assessed. We therefore will have to be guided by the tree officer report. No TPO Required.
PL/25/4702/TP Orchard House, 3 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4ER
Works to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Prune 1 x Beech tree (T1) to provide a 2m clearance to neighbouring No. 4 Freemans Close as branches are encroaching towards property.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the tree officers report.
Hereby Permits
PL/25/3678/VRC Site of Boundary Meadow, Collum Green Road, Stoke Poges, Bucks.
Variation of condition 7 (BNG Credits) of planning permission ref: PL/24/1337/FA (New main entrance access gate and fencing, revised access road layout, internal driveway and hard standing and siting of solar panels (part retrospective) to allow for an amended BNG metric.
Parish Comments: We are leaving this to the case office to follow through and ensure the conditions are met.
Hereby Permits
PL/25/3900/FA 28 Sefton Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LJ
Proposed single storey front extension and pitched roof over existing bay window.
Parish Comments: No Comment.
Hereby Permits
ENFORCMENTS
APPEALS
PL/25/2108/FA Carrillon, Hollybush Hill, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PX
Erection of dwelling, creation of new vehicular access and hard and soft landscaping works.
Parish Comments: Object, our previous comments from a similar application last year which the planning authority refused still apply and were:
We agree that we need smaller stock housing however if minded to approve then we believe that all permitted development rights should be removed to prevent further development. We would draw the officer’s attention to this spot which floods for most of the winter, and Carrillon itself uses sandbags for most of the winter. A Traffic Management Plan for an already congested area for parking and from parking for the pub is required. Yellow lines have already been placed in Broom Hill where the entrance to this property is proposed.
The proposal fails to demonstrate that adequate ground investigations have been carried out in order to determine that the proposed sustainable drainage strategy is feasible for the onsite ground conditions, and that the proposed development would be resilient and resistant to the risk of flooding within the site. In the absence of sufficient information in this regard the proposal fails to demonstrate that Core Policy 13 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) is satisfied, as well as the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reasons for refusal:
1.The proposed development, by virtue of its layout, design, height, width, depth and scale, would appear as a dominant and intrusive feature within the existing street scene of both Broom Hill and Hollybush Hill, whilst the proposed relationship with Carillon would make the resultant relationship appear cramped. These factors would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, including its spaciousness. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies EP3 and H9 of the Local Plan, Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy, Paragraph 6.1.7 of the Council's Residential Design Guide, Section 12 of the NPPF and Section C1 of the National Design Guide, which collectively and amongst other matters, state that development will only be permitted where its scale, layout and siting are compatible with the character of the site and locality, and poor designs will not be permitted.
2. Inadequate ecological information has been submitted with the application, and it has not been possible to fully assess the impact of the proposal on biodiversity including the impact of the proposed development on protected species. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate how wildlife will not be harmed, as well as failing to demonstrate how net gain for biodiversity will be obtained and is therefore contrary to Core Policy CP9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) and the guidance set out in the NPPF.
3. The occupants of the proposal would add to the recreational disturbance of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation as the proposal would not contribute satisfactorily to mitigate its impacts in this respect. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable strategic access management and monitoring, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011), Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy SPD, and Section 15 of the NPPF.
We refer you to our newly adopted neighbourhood plan which can be viewed on our website but should be being used by Planning Officers for every application now is available and on our website.
Sections LB01 and LB04 apply.
Hereby Refuses Permission
Appeal Written Reps by 6/2/26