Planning Committee - Meeting Minutes
Monday 21st September 2026
Table Of Contents
Introduction
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 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 Finan
In Attendance: Mrs J Simmonds (Clerk/Legal & Financial Officer)
Also present: 3 Members of public.
Agenda Items
053/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.
Members of public were present to listen to comments on Wexham Gold Club and Pinewood Nurseries.
054/PL/26 Apologies for Absence and Acceptance.
APOLOGIES were received and accepted for Cllr Crocker, Cllr Wilson and Mr Harris.
055/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.
056/PL/26 Minutes
RESOLVED to approve the Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on 17 August 202 which were signed by the Chair.
057/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.
058/PL/26 NOTED Planning Decisions, Enforcements and Appeals.
District Decisions made since the last Planning Committee Meeting. See Appendix 3.
059/PL/26 Councillors/Members Update
Cllr Carter updated the committee on the Call In Meeting she attended at County regarding 61 Vine Road.
060/PL/26 Buckinghamshire Council Complaints Procedure
Copy of the report from Cllr Bassi previously circulated, to report back and to Decide!
061/PL/26 Correspondence.
None
062/PL/26 Exclusion of the Press & Public
Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 RESOLVED to 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.
063/PL/26 NOTED Outstanding Enforcements See Appendix 4.
064/PL/26 NOTED Next meeting date: 19 October 2026
Meeting ended at 9.40pm.
APPENDIX 1
DELEGATED COMMENTS
APPENDIX 2
NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
PL/26/06177/OA Wexham Grange, Land West of Wexham Street, Stoke Poges, SL3 6ND
Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for principal means of vehicular access to the highway) for the erection of up to 230 dwellings, including affordable housing, public open space and associated infrastructure.
Parish Comments: Object
How the Parish Council asks that this representation be taken into account National decision-making policy (NDMP) DM3.1.c of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides that, when considering development proposals, local planning authorities should take account of planning matters raised during any pre-application engagement, including any positive responses to that engagement, as well as representations on the proposals (own emphasis).
The Parish Council has not confined itself to expressing a view. It has commissioned independent evidence and expertise. The Parish Council therefore asks that the officer report does more than record that a representation was received from Stoke Poges Parish Council. It asks that the report rehearses the matters raised in this representation, sets out the Council's position on each, and explains where and why it differs. That is what NDMP DM3.1.c requires, and it is the only basis on which members can be satisfied that the evidence before them has been weighed rather than listed.
Contents: Summary of Representation
1. Relevant policies
2. Key issues
3. Other matters for consideration
4. Conclusion
Appendix 1 – Request to Buckinghamshire Council on the national scheme of delegation
Appendix 2 – Connectivity Tool output
Summary of Representation
• The Parish Council objects to the proposed development and requests that planning permission be refused.
• The site is not grey belt. It comprises 15.69 hectares of wholly open golf course adjoining the built-up edge of Slough, which already reaches its south-western corner along Stoke Poges Lane, Church Lane and Farthing Green Lane. There is no defensible feature between the site and that edge. Development would bridge the remaining gap to Wexham Street, so that the village would cease to read as a settlement within the Green Belt and would be read as sprawl of the northern edge of the Slough urban area. That is an incongruous pattern of development within the meaning of Annex E of the NPPF, and the site therefore contributes strongly to Green Belt purpose (a).
• Even if the land were grey belt, the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt taken together, contrary to the second limb of NDMP GB7.1.g.i. That question has not been assessed by the applicant.
• The site is not in a sustainable location within NDMP TR3. The Department for Transport Connectivity Tool, which NDMP TR3.2 requires to be used, places this location in the lowest 20% nationally for walking. The applicant's own transport evidence assumes that approximately seven in ten trips will be made by private car.
• Either of those conclusions is sufficient. NDMP GB7.1.g is not satisfied, the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and substantial weight attaches to the harm.
• The proposal would remove the Green Course at Wexham Park Golf Centre, the nine-hole course on which people start playing, and with Gallions Park 18 of the centre’s 27 holes. The Green Course alone carries more than 25,000 rounds a year. No surplus has been clearly shown and nothing is replaced, contrary to NDMP HC7 and South Buckinghamshire Core Policies 5 and 6.
• The transport evidence is incomplete. The Transport Assessment omits background traffic growth, tests the year of opening rather than five or ten years after completion, does not use the Buckinghamshire Strategic Transport Model which the Council requested at pre-application stage, and does not assess eight of the eleven locations of established local concern. The Council is not in a position to conclude that the impacts are acceptable.
• The benefits are overstated. The 50 per cent affordable housing is the minimum NDMP GB8 requires on Green Belt land, not an overprovision, and the Housing Needs Assessment prepared for the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan establishes that no affordable home ownership product is affordable to a household on the average income here, save shared ownership at a 10 per cent share. The tenure composition is not secured.
• The applicant advances no very special circumstances case, and the harm is not clearly outweighed. • The Parish Council has separately asked that both applications be determined by members at committee and has set out its position on the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026. That request is at Appendix 1.
• If the Council is nonetheless minded to approve, Section 3 sets out what the Parish Council asks to be secured, including on the location and accessibility of any new primary school.
1. Relevant Policies
1.1.The following adopted development plan policies are especially relevant for the Parish Council’s representation:
o Core Policies 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 (SBCS)
o Policies GB1 and TR5 of the South Bucks Local Plan saved policies 1999 (SBLP)
o Policies SP4 and SP11 of the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan (SPNP)
1.2.The development plan is the starting point for decision-making unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) are critical material considerations. The latest version of the NPPF includes a number of national decision-making policies (NDMP) which are especially relevant for the Parish Council’s representation:
o DM1.1.b where it is noted that the applicant should be invited to submit a revised Planning Statement setting out how the proposal is consistent with relevant national decision-making policies; o DM3.1.c which requires the local planning authority to take account of representations on the proposals; o DM4 on the weight given to emerging proposals;
o S5 on the principle of development outside settlements and at S5.5 on the approach to development in the Green Belt;
o GB6, GB7 and GB8 on development in the Green Belt read with Annex B and Annex E;
o TR3, TR4 and TR6 on development and transport matters;
o HC7 on development affecting existing recreational land and facilities.
1.3.The latest version of the NPPF makes it clear in transitional arrangements that development plan policies (or parts of policies) which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in the NPPF should be given very limited weight. The same provision states that other development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted before the NPPF was published. In this respect, the Parish Council notes that:
a. Core Policy 1 of the SBCS is materially inconsistent with the standard method approach and carries very limited weight;
b. Core Policies 3 and 7 of the SBCS sit comfortably alongside complimentary NDMP on these matters and therefore continue to carry full weight;
c. Core Policy 5 of the SBCS protects open space, sport and recreational facilities and permits their loss only in defined circumstances. Its protective purpose, and its requirements that a facility be of low value or quality and that there be clear evidence of no local quantitative or qualitative deficiency, are consistent with NDMP HC7 and carry full weight. It is accepted that the requirement that all five of its criteria be met, including that the site lie within a settlement excluded from the Green Belt, goes further than NDMP HC7, and that this part of the policy may be regarded as materially inconsistent with it. NDMP HC7 is therefore the primary test, with Core Policy 5 applied alongside it;
d. Core Policy 6 of the SBCS protects existing physical, social and green infrastructure unless it is clear that it is no longer needed or alternative appropriate provision is made elsewhere. That is consistent with NDMP HC6 and HC7 and the policy carries full weight;
e. It is only the closed list of exceptions in Policy GB1 of the SBLP which pre-dates grey belt and other NPPF green belt exceptions. The policy’s underlying control: that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a recognised exception, and inappropriate development requires very special circumstances remain consistent with NDMP GB6 and carries full weight;
f. The provisions of Policy TR5 of the SBLP is consistent with the provisions of NDMP TR4 and TR6 and therefore carries full weight;
g. The provisions of SPNP Policies are also considered to be consistent with the provisions of NDMP’s and therefore carry full weight.
1.4.The emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan has recently completed its Regulation 19 consultation and is due to be submitted for examination before 31 December 2026. Applying NDMP DM4.1, and given the stage reached, its provisions carry very limited weight.
2. Key Issues
Grey Belt
2.1.Annex B of the NPPF defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in NPPF provision GB2. The word is "any". A strong contribution to one purpose takes the land outside the definition, whatever its contribution to the others.
2.2.Annex E of the NPPF, paragraphs 2 to 5, sets out the criteria for that judgement, in materially the same terms as Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 005, Reference ID 64-005-20250225. For purpose (a) an area contributes strongly where it is likely to be free of existing development, lacks physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development, and includes both of the following: being adjacent or near to a large built-up area, and, if developed, resulting in an incongruous pattern of development, such as an extended finger of development into the Green Belt.
2.3.Annex E paragraph 3 provides that villages are not to be considered large built-up areas. The only large built-up area in the vicinity of the site is Slough. Wexham Street and Stoke Poges are villages.
2.4.The site comprises 15.69 hectares of golf course. It contains no permanent structures and is wholly open. The site is near to the large built-up area of Slough. As to physical features capable of restricting and containing development, the site is bounded to the west by Farthing Green Lane, to the east by Wexham Street, to the north by residential frontage, and to the south by open agricultural land. A single carriageway unclassified rural lane is not a feature capable of restraining the outward growth of a built-up area of Slough's size. Lanes of this kind are routinely absorbed as internal streets when development passes them, which is what has already happened to the frontages along Stoke Poges Lane and Church Lane. On the southern boundary, which is the boundary facing Slough, there is no feature of any kind. There is accordingly no defensible feature between this site and the built-up edge.
2.5.The Parish Council further notes that Annex E paragraph 1.a requires assessment areas to be identified at a scale small enough to enable variations in their contribution to the Green Belt purposes to be assessed, and to be subdivided where this is necessary to identify grey belt. A conclusion reached at the scale of a wider parcel does not establish the contribution of this site, which occupies a particular position at the head of the built-up edge.
2.6.As to whether development would produce an incongruous pattern, the built-up edge of Slough already extends northwards as frontage development along Stoke Poges Lane, Church Lane and Farthing Green Lane, reaching the south-western corner of the site. Development of the site would bridge from that frontage across the full depth of the intervening Green Belt to the southern edge of Wexham Street. The consequence is not an increment. It is that Wexham Street would cease to read as a village set in the Green Belt and would instead form the northern edge of the Slough urban area. That is an incongruous pattern of development within the meaning of Annex E.
2.7.
2.8.The Parish Council's position is therefore that the site makes a strong contribution to purpose (a). 2.9.The Parish Council anticipates the argument that the site is partially enclosed by existing development. There are two answers. First, the Annex E criterion is not simply partial enclosure; it is partial enclosure "such that new development would not result in an incongruous pattern of development". The qualifying words are part of the test. Second, the enclosure relied upon lies on the three sides facing away from Slough. Purpose (a) is concerned with checking the sprawl of a large built-up area. Enclosure on the sides facing away from that built-up area does nothing to restrain growth from it. To treat the most recent outward extension of Slough as the reason the next is acceptable is circular, and it is the mechanism by which unrestricted sprawl proceeds.
2.10.The applicant's own Environmental Statement treats this and the accompanying Gallions Park application as a single project of up to 680 dwellings, on the basis that their impacts are interrelated. Assessed as the applicant assesses them, the conclusion is reinforced rather than altered. The project would place development on both sides of Wexham Street along its southern approach, joining the Slough frontage to the village from the west and extending the hospital projection towards it from the east, across 43.7 hectares in total. No assessment of contribution to purpose (a) that took the project as a whole could rationally conclude that the contribution was other than strong.
2.11.The Parish Council has also considered purposes (b) and (d). It assesses the contribution to purpose (b) as moderate, the site forming only a modest part of the gap between Slough and Gerrards Cross, and the contribution to purpose (d) as weak or none, no historic town being engaged. Neither is pressed. The definition at Annex B is not satisfied by reason of the contribution to purpose (a) alone.
2.12.The Parish Council notes that the definition applies the same condition to previously developed land and to other land, "in either case". Land does not become grey belt by containing structures. Fairways, greens, tees and the informal paths between them are not land lawfully developed and occupied by a permanent structure within the meaning of Annex B of the NPPF, and in any event any part of the site which were previously developed land would still have to satisfy the same test.
2.13.Even were the land to be treated as grey belt, NDMP GB7.1.g.i. imposes a separate and additional requirement that development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. That question is not answered by the grey belt judgement. It is assessed at the scale of the plan area rather than the site, and Annex E paragraph 1.c requires it to be assessed against all five Green Belt purposes, not the three relevant to the definition.
2.14.The Parish Council's position is that the test is not met. The case for a moderate contribution to purpose (a) rests on partial enclosure by existing development, each element of which is itself a previous outward extension. If that reasoning is accepted here, it becomes available for every parcel behind the new edge, since each permission manufactures the enclosure which justifies the next. The remaining Green Belt in this part of Buckinghamshire is the narrow belt between the northern edge of Slough and the villages. It is not a broad tract with depth to spare. A method of reasoning which, once accepted, supplies a ready justification for developing successive parcels of that belt does fundamentally undermine its purposes taken together, whatever the merits of any individual parcel. The test is not one of quantum. It is whether what remains can still do the job.
Harm to the purposes of the Green Belt
2.15.The five purposes of the Green Belt are set out at GB2.1 of the NPPF. Although GB2 is a plan-making policy, the purposes are imported into decision-taking by the definition of grey belt at Annex B, which turns on purposes (a), (b) and (d); by NDMP GB7.1.g.i, which asks whether development would fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together; and by Annex E, which requires assessment against the five purposes taken together. The proper question for the planning balance is therefore the effect of the development on the Green Belt and its purposes as a whole. It is not confined to the three purposes relevant to the grey belt definition, and it is not answered by a conclusion that land is or is not grey belt. The chapter opens by recording that the objective of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts, "the essential features of which are their openness and permanence". It is against that objective that the harm falls to be judged.
2.16.The development would build upon 15.69 hectares of land which is presently wholly open and free of permanent structures. Taken with the companion proposal at Gallions Park, which the applicant's own Environmental Statement treats as part of the same project, 43.7 hectares of open land would be lost.
2.17.Openness would be lost across the whole of the site. Openness is the essential feature of the Green Belt and its loss is harm in itself, irrespective of the contribution the land makes to any particular purpose.
2.18.The capacity of this land to check the outward growth of Slough would end. The built-up edge already reaches the south-western corner of the site along Stoke Poges Lane, Church Lane and Farthing Green Lane. Development would carry it across the remaining depth of open land to Wexham Street, so that the village ceases to read as a settlement within the Green Belt and becomes the northern edge of the urban area.
2.19.The countryside between Slough and the villages would be encroached upon, and the physical and visual separation between them correspondingly reduced. The Parish Council does not contend that Slough and Gerrards Cross would merge, and it does not advance purpose (b) as a strong contribution. It does contend that the separation which gives these villages their identity is a function the Green Belt performs here, and that the development would materially reduce it.
2.20.The permanence of what remained would be weakened. NDMP GB4.1.f requires Green Belt boundaries to be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be defensible. The southern edge of this site, which would become the new edge of the Green Belt, runs across open agricultural fields with no feature upon the ground. A boundary of that kind invites the next application. The pressure to bring forward urban land within Slough for development would also be reduced, at the margin, by the release of greenfield land at its edge outside the plan process.
2.21.The site is not grey belt, and independently the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt taken together. NDMP GB7.1.g.i is therefore not satisfied on either of its two parts. The Parish Council also addresses criterion iii. below. No other category in NDMP GB7 is engaged. It follows that NDMP GB6 applies. The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful; substantial weight must be given to that harm including harm to openness; and permission should not be granted except in very special circumstances which clearly outweigh that harm and any other harm.
Sustainable location
2.22.NDMP GB7.1.g. of the NPPF provides that development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt where all four of its criteria are met. The third, at GB7.1.g.iii., is that the development would be in a sustainable location, "with particular reference to policy TR3 of this Framework". The Parish Council draws attention to the terms of that cross-reference. The equivalent provision in the December 2024 Framework, at paragraph 155(c), referred to paragraphs 110 and 115, which were concerned with the promotion of sustainable transport and with the assessment of residual impacts. The Planning Statement is written to that formulation. The current requirement refers instead to policy TR3, which is titled "Locating development in sustainable locations" and which is a test of the location itself rather than of the transport measures proposed for it.
2.23.NDMP TR3.1.a. provides that development proposals which could generate a significant amount of movement should be in locations that are sustainable, or which can be made so, and that this means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users, unless the nature of the development would make this impractical.
2.24.NDMP TR3.1.c requires that any significant adverse impacts from the development on the transport network, in terms of capacity and congestion, or on highway safety, should be mitigated to an acceptable degree using a vision-led approach. That criterion is addressed in the section on transport impacts below. NDMP TR3.1.e provides that in rural areas opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport and to enhance the connectivity of an area should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development proposed. The Parish Council supports the taking of those opportunities and addresses them in the representation elsewhere.
2.25.NDMP TR3.2 provides that the Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool - GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development. The Parish Council makes no criticism of the applicant for not having used the Connectivity Tool, since the Transport Assessment was prepared before the current NPPF was published. It observes only that policy TR3 falls to be applied at determination, and that the only Connectivity Tool evidence before the Council is that submitted by the Parish Council at Appendix 2.
2.26.The Parish Council has run the Department for Transport Connectivity Tool for the location. The results are set out in full at Appendix 2 and are summarised below.
Score National distribution
Overall excluding driving 53 Low, 20-30%
Public transport 54 Low, 20-30%
Walking 47 Very low, 10-20%
Cycling 65 Below average, 30-40%
Driving 85 Slightly below average 40-50%
2.26.Broken down by destination, the position is more striking still. For leisure the overall score excluding driving is 40, and the walking score is 33, which places this location in the lowest decile nationally. For shopping the overall score is 45 and the walking score 42, both in the 10th to 20th percentile.
2.27.The clearest evidence is in the comparison of modes for the destinations residents must reach. For health, driving scores 88, in the 80th to 90th percentile nationally, while walking scores 46, in the 30th to 40th. For education, driving scores 84, in the 60th to 70th percentile, while walking scores 53, in the 40th to 50th.
2.28.The pattern is consistent and it is not marginal. Residents of this site would be able to drive to a hospital, a school or a shop with relative ease. They would not be able to walk to any of them other than with difficulty. That is the opposite of a location which limits the need to travel by private car and offers a genuine choice of modes.
2.29.The Transport Assessment proceeds on an assessed modal split of approximately 70 per cent private car. A proposal for up to 230 dwellings whose own transport evidence assumes that seven in ten trips will be made by car is not evidence of a sustainable location. It is evidence that the applicant does not expect the location to function as one.
2.30.On public transport, the Design and Access Statement relies upon two services, route WP1 between Slough town centre, Wexham Park Hospital and Stoke Green, and route 106 between Slough and Chalfont St Peter. The Parish Council's advisers record that the hourly frequency claimed is not borne out in practice, that the service is sporadic and unreliable, and that both routes run broadly north to south and therefore do not serve the range of destinations residents need to reach.
2.31.On walking and cycling, the claimed uptake is contradicted by the applicant's own modal split, and by the condition of footways and street lighting on the routes residents would in fact use.
2.32.On car clubs and mobility hubs, the proposal is an idealised model. A car club in a location of this character would need to be self-financing within a defined period and to secure an established operator. Neither is demonstrated.
2.33.The Parish Council has considered whether this is a location which, although not presently sustainable, can be made so within the meaning of NDMP TR3.1.a. It concludes that it cannot. The measures proposed are improvements to footways, crossings, lighting and the public rights of way network, together with a travel plan and the aspiration of a car club. Each is welcome and each would improve conditions at the margin. None alters the underlying facts, which are the distance to the services residents must reach, the absence of a bus network running in the directions they need to travel, and the applicant's own expectation that seven in ten trips will be made by car. A location does not become sustainable because a development improves the pavements leading away from it.
2.34.The adopted Core Strategy identifies Wexham Street among the Rural Settlements, a category defined as having a very limited range of shops and community facilities, in some cases none at all, and often poor access to public transport, particularly at weekends. That characterisation is not a policy judgement about where growth should go, and so is unaffected by the weight which Core Policy 1 attracts. It is a description of the facilities and services which exist at Wexham Street, the settlement this site adjoins, and it was confirmed as remaining accurate at paragraph 4.3 of the Wexham Neighbourhood Plan.
2.35.Core Policy 7 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to promote accessibility to services and facilities, is consistent with policy TR3 and carries full weight. The proposal conflicts with it.
2.36.Policy SP11 of the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan identifies a Local Access Network intended to support healthy, safe and active travel within the parish, and the site frontage to Wexham Street adjoins a designated Key Location on the Policies Map. The policy carries full weight.
2.37.The site is not in a sustainable location within the meaning of NDMP TR3, and it cannot be made one by the measures proposed. The criterion at GB7.1.g.iii is therefore not met.
2.38.The four criteria in GB7.1.g are cumulative. The failure of this criterion is by itself sufficient to take the development outside the exception, irrespective of the Parish Council's separate case that the site does not constitute grey belt. It follows that the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt under policy GB6, that substantial weight must be given to the harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness, and that permission should not be granted except in very special circumstances which clearly outweigh that harm.
2.39.The separate question of the acceptability of the transport impacts of the development, under NDMP TR6.3 and TR6.4, is addressed below.
Loss of recreational land and facilities
2.40.The site is the whole of the Green Course at Wexham Park Golf Centre, 15.69 hectares. The Green Course is the nine-hole course of a 27-hole facility which also comprises the 18-hole Blue Course east of Wexham Street, a 32-bay driving range, a golf academy and an adventure golf course. It was “designed to be accessible for those new to golf” (GNA paragraph 2.3) and is the course to which the centre’s academy membership is limited. 1
2.41.This application would remove the Green Course entirely. With the companion application at Gallions Park, which would reduce the Blue Course from 18 holes to nine, the centre would lose 18 of its 27 holes.
2.42.The facility is well used. The applicant’s Golf Needs Assessment (GNA, Nexus Planning, July 2026) records at paragraph 4.25 a membership of 756 and 59,824 rounds in the last twelve months, of which 25,314 were played on the Green Course. Some 26,099 rounds across the centre, 44 per cent of the total, were played by green fee players rather than members. England Golf has recognised the centre as one of England’s most successful junior golf environments. The GNA itself describes the centre as “a public golf centre with 2 wider accessibility” (paragraph 4.30), and accepts that private members’ clubs “may not provide an equivalent alternative” for its users (paragraph 4.31).
2.43.NDMP HC7.1 provides that development proposals should not result in the loss of existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land unless one of four circumstances applies. NDMP HC7.1.c. on public infrastructure, and HC7.1.d on alternative sport and recreational provision do not apply. The applicant relies on provisions now set out in NDMP HC7.1.a and b.
2.44.NDMP HC7.1.a requires an assessment which has clearly shown the land to be surplus to requirements. The GNA concedes at paragraph 6.14 that “there is no recognised standard for golf provision against which oversupply or undersupply can be based”, and then concludes at paragraph 6.15 that the course is surplus. The route between the two is a comparison of golf holes per 1,000 population with county, regional and national averages. A ratio above the national average shows that an area is relatively well provided for. It does not show that a particular facility is not required.
2.45.The GNA’s demand analysis considers only the growth in golfers arising from population change to 2045 (paragraph 5.10). It does not address the demand that exists now: 25,314 rounds a year on this course alone. It does not ask where those rounds would be played and does not assess whether any other facility could absorb them. A course carrying more than 25,000 rounds a year is not surplus to requirements.
2.46.The GNA’s nine-hole supply overstates the alternatives. Its count of publicly accessible nine-hole provision, 63 holes (paragraphs 4.50 and 4.51), includes the three nine-hole loops at Stoke Park. They account for 27 of the 63 holes and, once the Green Course is removed, half of what remains. Stoke Park’s published visitor green fees for 2026 are £155 on weekdays and £175 on Fridays and at weekends. The GNA’s own table records Stoke 3 1 wexhamparkgolfcentre.co.uk/membership (accessed 24 September 2026). Junior membership is £176.40 (under 12), £226.40 (12 to 14) and £276.40 (15 to 17). Academy membership is limited to the nine-hole Green Course. 2 England Golf, “Wexham Park Golf Centre: England Golf Junior Hub Inspiring the Next Generation”, englandgolf.org/news-detail? newsarticleid=1486 (accessed 24 September 2026). 3 Golf Business News, “Stoke Park opens new clubhouse ahead of welcoming visitors back for new season”, 17 March 2026: visitor green fees for the 2026 spring and summer season of £155 Monday to Thursday and £175 Friday and weekends. Park as having “changed model” and gives no price. Setting Stoke Park aside, the publicly accessible nine-hole alternatives are three single courses, at Iver, Datchet and Hedsor. The GNA’s wider supply also includes Uxbridge Golf Centre, which closed in January 2025 and remains closed, and does not deduct the reduction at South Buckinghamshire which it 4 records at paragraph 4.13. 5
2.47.The value and quality of this facility have been assessed by the Council. The Open Space, Sports and Recreational Facilities Strategy (2008), the evidence base named in Core Policy 5, scores the site 27 for value against a threshold of 15, and 43 for quality against a threshold of 39 (GNA paragraphs 3.16 and 3.17). The GNA’s alternative measure, online user ratings, is not an assessment, and the GNA accepts at paragraph 4.34 that “no assessments have taken place”.
2.48.NDMP HC7.1.b requires the loss to be replaced by equivalent or better provision, in a location which offers comparable or improved accessibility for the community it serves. Nothing is replaced. Reliance on facilities which already exist elsewhere is the surplus argument under another name. The public open space within the scheme is required to meet the needs of its own residents under NDMP GB8.1.c and Core Policy 5. It is not a sports facility and it replaces nothing. A nine-hole course formed from the reconfigured Blue Course, should the companion application proceed, would not replace the Green Course either: it would be the remnant of the 18-hole course, and the centre would still have lost half its holes.
2.49.The Green Course is where people start. It is the course designed for those new to the game and the course to which academy membership is confined. Its loss would remove the first step of the route from range to nine holes to 18 holes at a centre England Golf has recognised for its junior golf. The GNA does not mention junior golf. Its demand analysis instead relies on a projected fall of almost 16 per cent in the 10 to 19 age group to discount future demand (Table 5.11.1). That is an argument for protecting the facilities through which young people take up the game, not for removing them. 2.50.The Planning Statement claims compliance with Core Policy 5 (paragraph 6.148). It cannot comply. The policy requires all five of its criteria to be met. The site is not of low value or quality on the Council’s own evidence, there is no clear evidence of an absence of local deficiency, and the site is not within a settlement excluded from the Green Belt. Setting the last of those aside, the proposal still fails the first two, which are consistent with NDMP HC7. Core Policy 6 protects existing social and green Infrastructure unless it is clear that it is no longer needed or alternative appropriate provision is made elsewhere. Neither is shown.
2.51.Policy WEX12 of the Wexham Neighbourhood Plan does not apply to this site, which lies in Stoke Poges parish. The Neighbourhood Plan is nonetheless a material consideration. It identifies the golf centre as an important community facility whose “continued presence in the parish is supported”, and describes that facility as providing “both a 9- and 18-hole 4 uxbridgegolfcentre.co.uk (accessed 24 September 2026): “Course currently closed”. The London Borough of Hillingdon closed the course on 14 January 2025 and in April 2025 approved a 65-year lease to a new operator. 5 thesouthbuckinghamshire.co.uk (accessed 24 September 2026), which describes the course as “now 12 holes”. course”. The facility the neighbouring community has planned to retain includes the Green Course.
2.52.Sport England’s response on the companion application (PL/26/06178/OA) states that the proposal falls outside its statutory remit and that it “has not provided a detailed response”, and advises that full consideration be given to national and local policies protecting sport and recreation facilities and to the advice of the relevant national governing body. The Parish Council is not aware of a response on this application. The absence of an objection from Sport England is not evidence that the loss is acceptable. The Parish Council asks the Council to consult England Golf, the national governing body for the sport, before determining the application.
2.53.The proposal would result in the loss of recreational land and facilities contrary to NDMP HC7 and Core Policies 5 and 6 of the SBCS. None of the circumstances in which NDMP HC7 permits such a loss applies. On the Parish Council’s primary case the development is inappropriate, and the loss is “other harm” to be weighed under NDMP GB6.2 alongside the harm to the Green Belt. Were the Council to find that the development is not inappropriate, NDMP S5.5 requires the balance to be struck applying paragraph 2 of NDMP S5. That paragraph provides that the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed where a proposal would fail to comply with a national decision-making policy stating that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. NDMP HC7 is such a policy: development proposals “should not result in the loss” of recreational land and facilities unless one of its four circumstances applies, and none does. On either test, the Parish Council considers that the loss attracts significant weight as an adverse effect in its own right, and greater weight when the companion Gallions Park application is taken into account. Transport impacts
2.54.NDMP TR6.1 of the NPPF requires development proposals likely to generate significant amounts of movement to be supported by a transport assessment proportionate to the nature and scale of the development, and by a travel plan indicating how sustainable transport objectives will be delivered, monitored and managed over time. NDMP TR6.3 provides that in assessing movement patterns and potential impacts, including whether they are considered to be severe, reasonable future scenarios should be considered, taking into account impacts at relevant times of the day, potential cumulative impacts, multimodal trip generation and the promotion of sustainable modes of travel, and realising the transport vision for the development itself. NDMP TR6.4 provides that development proposals should be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative impacts), or an unacceptable impact on highway safety; taking into account any mitigation measures proposed as well as any wider network improvements, including measures to support sustainable patterns of movement. Policy TR3.1.c requires that any significant adverse impacts on the transport network, in terms of capacity and congestion, or on highway safety, should be mitigated to an acceptable degree using a vision-led approach.
2.55.Saved Policy TR5 of the SBLP requires that, in determining proposals involving new or altered access arrangements, works to the highway, or development generating additional traffic, regard is had to the effects on highway safety, congestion and the environment. Core Policy 7 of the Core Strategy seeks to promote accessibility while supporting a safe and efficient transport network.
2.56.The Parish Council does not advance a wholesale criticism of the applicant's transport work and it is right to record what its advisers accept. The methodology of the transport assessments and the traffic model used can be considered adequate representations of the local highway network. The TRICS trip generation data is acceptable, as are the split of trips into modes of travel and by purpose. Personal Injury Accident records have been examined and no locations were found where highway conditions merited attention to reduce incidents. Stage 1 Safety Audits have been satisfactorily made and their recommendations considered for the site access and other highway proposals. The Parish Council's objection is therefore not that the assessment is wrong. It is that it is incomplete, in identifiable and material respects, and that on the evidence presented the Council is not in a position to conclude that the impacts are acceptable.
2.57.The Parish Council and its members have identified eleven locations in and around the parish which experience adverse traffic conditions in the peak periods. Of those eleven, three are assessed in the Transport Assessment, at Figures 9.1 and 9.4. Eight are not assessed at all. They are:
o the junction of Church Lane and Park Road;
o the junction of Church Lane and Greys Park Road;
o Greys Park Road towards the roundabout at Stoke Green and Stoke Road;
o Stoke Road turning right into Fir Tree Avenue;
o Church Lane turning right into Fir Tree Avenue; o the junction of Bells Hill turning right into Hollybush Hill;
o the whole of Hollybush Hill at school drop off and pick up times; and
o Rogers Lane from West End Lane to Bells Hill at school times.
2.58.Several of these lie directly on the routes by which traffic from this site would travel westwards and northwards, by way of Farthing Green Lane and Church Lane. The Church Lane junctions in particular would carry development traffic from this site and are not assessed in the submission. Local knowledge is that Hollybush Hill can take forty minutes to traverse end to end at school times because of gridlocked traffic, and that Rogers Lane between West End Lane and Bells Hill is gridlocked at the same times.
2.59.NDMP TR6.3 requires impacts to be assessed "at relevant times of the day". The relevant times at these locations are the school drop off and pick up periods, which are not necessarily the network peak hours modelled. The Transport Assessment does not test them. The applicant has used 2031, the estimated year of opening, as the target year for junction capacity assessments. The usual requirement is to model five years after completion of the development, and for major developments of this nature a horizon of up to ten years after completion is commonly used. The assessment therefore tests the network at the moment the development arrives rather than at any point in the period over which its effects will be felt.
2.60.The assessment does not include National Road Traffic Forecast growth using Tempro. It assumes that only committed developments will add traffic to the network. It is standard practice to include background traffic growth in future year assessments in addition to committed development traffic. The effect of the omission is to understate future flows, and therefore to understate the residual impact of the development.
2.61.At the pre-application meeting of 15 July 2026 the Council requested that traffic modelling should use the Buckinghamshire Strategic Transport Model, BSTM2. The Transport Assessment states, at paragraph 9.10.1, that no detailed information on the model, its scope, inputs or timescales was made available and that the model was not available for use prior to submission, and concludes at paragraph 9.10.2 that "there is no requirement to use the BSTM2 for this development". The Council's own website describes BSTM2 as having been developed "to inform planning applications and support transport assessments", states that developers can apply to use it, and sets out the application process. On the face of the Council's published material the model was available.
2.62.A gravity model has been used instead. The Parish Council's advisers consider that BSTM2 would better capture local highway routing, traffic behaviour and modelled congestion, and would more accurately represent the directional split and routing of traffic in this area.
2.63.Examination of the existing traffic flow data along Wexham Street shows that the observed directional splits during both the morning and evening peak periods do not reflect the directional distribution assumed for the modelling. That is a foundational input. If the distribution is wrong, the junction capacity results derived from it are unreliable.
2.64.The Transport Assessment gives accurate physical descriptions of the local highway network, its infrastructure and its junctions. It does not adequately describe existing traffic conditions, including queueing, on-street parking problems or link capacity. None of the junction capacity assessments reflects the queueing that residents observe, and none predicts any significant worsening of those conditions as a result of the development. An assessment which does not capture the baseline cannot demonstrate the increment.
2.65.The traffic flow data for future scenarios in the Transport Assessment does not clearly present the separate trip generations of the Wexham Grange and Gallions Park schemes so that they can be combined. It is also unclear whether the committed development of 317 dwellings and 350 square metres of commercial floorspace at Sefton Park is included in the junction capacity assessments. It is also unclear whether account has been taken of the pending application for up to 50 dwellings on land between Plough Lane and Farthing Green Lane, reference PL/25/6431/OA, which the applicant's own Planning Statement records at paragraph 2.2. NDMP TR6.3 requires reasonable future scenarios to be considered, which extends beyond commitments to development reasonably in prospect.
2.66.This matters particularly here. The applicant's own Environmental Statement treats this application as part of a single project of up to 680 dwellings, on the express basis that the impacts are interrelated. NDMP TR6.3 requires potential cumulative impacts to be taken into account. A reader of this Transport Assessment cannot presently identify what the combined effect of the project would be at any junction.
2.67.The Parish Council does not assert that it has demonstrated a severe adverse impact. It could not do so on the material available, and it does not seek to overstate its case. Its position is that the Council is not in a position to conclude that the impacts of this development are acceptable. The assessment omits background traffic growth, tests a year which is not the appropriate horizon, does not use the strategic model the Council itself requested, proceeds on a directional distribution which does not match observed conditions, does not characterise existing queueing, does not present the cumulative effect of the project of which this application forms part, and does not assess eight of the eleven locations at which conditions are known to be worst, including at the times of day when they are worst. Nor can the adequacy of the mitigation proposed be judged. NDMP TR6.4 requires severity to be assessed taking into account any mitigation measures proposed and any wider network improvements. Mitigation can only be measured against a baseline, and the baseline in this assessment does not reflect the queueing, on-street parking and school-time conditions which residents experience.
2.68.NDMP TR6.4 requires refusal where a development would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network including cumulative impacts. Whether that threshold is crossed is a question this assessment does not answer. The Parish Council invites the Council to require it to be answered before any decision is taken, and submits that in the absence of that work permission should be refused. The Parish Council further notes that NDMP S5.2 provides that the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include where a proposal would fail to comply with a national decision-making policy which states that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. NDMP TR6.4 is such a policy.
2.69.The Parish Council welcomes the junction, crossing, cycling and public right of way improvements offered so far as they go, and sets out below what it asks to be secured. It does not regard them as making this development acceptable.
3. Other matters for consideration Conditions
3.1.The Parish Council's position is that planning permission should be refused, for the reasons set out above. The matters in this section are raised without prejudice to that position. They are raised because the Parish Council considers it would be a failure of its duty to its community to leave them unsaid.
3.2.Paragraph 3.22 of the Planning Statement proposes a cascade mechanism for primary school provision. The first limb is a financial contribution towards the expansion of an existing primary school within Buckinghamshire and/or Slough Borough. The second is a financial contribution towards the delivery of a new primary school within Buckinghamshire and/or Slough Borough. The provision of land for a new one form entry primary school on the Safeguarded Land is the third and last limb. Paragraph 3.24 records that "the need or otherwise for this Safeguarded Land would be determined through the planning application process".
3.3.On the face of that cascade, the entire educational response to a project of up to 680 dwellings could take the form of a payment towards expanding a school in Slough Borough. Every one of the resulting school journeys would be made from a location whose Connectivity Tool walking score for education is 53 and would in practice be made by car. That outcome would compound the transport effects addressed above rather than mitigate them.
3.4.The Parish Council therefore asks that the cascade be reordered and conditioned, so that a financial contribution under the first or second limb is available only where the local education authority confirms in writing, before the completion of any planning obligation, that sufficient additional places can be delivered at an existing or new school which the majority of children from the development could reach on foot, within a defined walking catchment to be agreed. In the absence of that confirmation, the land option should be triggered.
3.5.If a school is to be provided on the Safeguarded Land, the Parish Council asks that its position and access be settled so that it serves the existing community as well as the new one. The land shown on drawing LEU.01 lies at the southern extremity of the Wexham Grange site, which is the point within the wider project furthest from Wexham Street and closest to Slough. It adjoins the Sports Centre and Wexham Park Hall, and the Parish Council regards that co-location as the strongest feature of the position and one which should be made the most of. Specifically, the Parish Council asks that:
a. the school be laid out and accessed so that it can be reached on foot and by cycle directly from Wexham Street and from the existing public rights of way network, and not only through the internal streets of the new development;
b. safe walking and cycling routes to the school be provided and secured for existing residents of Wexham Street, Plough Lane, Farthing Green Lane and Stoke Green, with a controlled crossing of Wexham Street where required;
c. the opportunity for shared access, parking and servicing with the Sports Centre and Wexham Park Hall be taken, so that the school forms part of a community cluster rather than a facility internal to a new estate;
d. arrangements for drop off and pick up be designed so that they do not discharge onto Wexham Street in a manner which worsens the conditions identified in this representation; and e. the school be secured with a community use agreement, so that its hall, grounds and sports facilities are available to the existing community outside school hours.
3.6.The Parish Council is aware that a number of local schools have objected on the grounds of pressure on school places. The applicant has offered education contributions. If the Council were minded to grant permission, the Parish Council expects the applicant to be held to the full cost of the school places the development generates, whether through land, build or financial contributions. It also expects those obligations to be secured in a planning obligation, triggered before the pupils arrive, and not reduced on viability grounds. Local families should not bear the consequences of a shortfall the development creates.
3.7.The Parish Council also asks that, if the Council were minded to grant permission:
a. the Buckinghamshire Strategic Transport Model be used, or failing that that the junction assessments be re-run to include at least National Road Traffic Forecast background growth and to model conditions five years after opening;
b. the eight unassessed locations identified above be assessed, including at school drop off and pick up times;
c. it be confirmed that all known and committed development, including Sefton Park and the pending application at land between Plough Lane and Farthing Green Lane, is included in the junction capacity assessments;
d. travel plans be monitored for a minimum of five years from first occupation, with a target of at least a 10 per cent reduction in single occupancy private car trips, consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in Buckinghamshire; and
e. the junction improvements, pedestrian crossing facilities, speed reduction measures and footway and street lighting improvements proposed, or identified by the Parish Council, be secured through a planning obligation with a timetable for implementation.
3.8.The Parish Council also asks that the improvements to walking, wheeling and cycling which NDMP TR3.1.e contemplates, be taken and secured, and in particular:
a. improvements at the Key Location on the Wexham Street frontage identified on the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan Policies Map under Policy SP11, together with improvements to the Local Access Network which that policy identifies;
b. the off-road walking and cycling links and public right of way improvements which the development is capable of delivering;
c. improvements to footway condition and street lighting on the routes residents would in fact use; and
d. developer-funded real time bus information at the bus stops nearest the site.
3.9.The Parish Council also asks that the affordable housing be secured in full, and specifically that: a. the rented element be secured at not less than the proportion sought by Policy SP4 of the SPNP;
b. the affordable home ownership element be delivered through products which the Housing Needs Assessment prepared for that Plan identifies as capable of achieving affordability in this area;
c. the size mix be secured consistently with Policy SP4, which seeks a majority of one and two bedroom dwellings; and
d. no viability review mechanism be included, the applicant having presented the 50 per cent as a benefit of the scheme.
3.10.Finally, the Parish Council asks that, were the Council minded to grant permission, a planning obligation to:
a. prevent any part of the existing golf course being taken out of use for development until the reconfigured nine-hole course proposed under PL/26/06649/FA has been completed and opened for play;
b. secure the retained golf facilities, comprising the remaining course, driving range and academy, for pay and play use by the public, with a junior membership category and a junior coaching programme, for a period to be agreed with the Council; and
c. secure a financial contribution, calculated with the advice of England Golf, towards publicly accessible golf provision in the area to offset the holes lost.
4. Conclusion
The applicable test
4.1.The Parish Council's primary position is that the site is not grey belt, and that the development is not in a sustainable location within NDMP TR3. On either conclusion, NDMP GB7.1.g is not satisfied, no other category in NDMP GB7 applies, and the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
4.2.The applicable test is therefore that at NDMP GB6.2. Permission should not be granted unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, together with any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, and substantial weight must be given to the Green Belt harm. The burden of demonstrating that lies on the applicant.
4.3.Only if the Council were to reject both of those submissions would the balance at NDMP S5.5 arise, under which permission should be granted unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies.
4.4.The Planning Statement contains no very special circumstances case. Paragraph 7.10 asserts in a single sentence that the test at paragraph 153 of the former Framework "is additionally passed", while stating that the applicant "does not consider this to be necessary/engaged". No harm is identified, weighed or set against any consideration. Should the Council conclude that the development is inappropriate, it will have no case before it to assess.
The benefits of the scheme
4.5.The delivery of market housing. The Parish Council accepts that this is a genuine benefit and that, in the context of a housing land supply of 0.97 years in the former South Bucks area, it attracts significant weight. It does not accept the description of the location as "highly sustainable", for the reasons above.
4.6.Affordable housing. Paragraph 7.6 describes the 50% offer as "significantly exceeding the requirements of adopted planning policy and guidance", by comparison with the 40 per cent in Core Policy 3. That comparison is with the wrong figure. Policy GB8.1.a.ii requires, on Green Belt sites, a contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing requirement, capped at 50 per cent. Forty plus fifteen is fifty five; the cap brings it to fifty. The scheme offers the minimum the NPPF requires for a site of this kind, and no more.
4.7.Further, compliance with the Golden Rules is a condition of the exception at GB7.1.g.iv, not a consideration weighing in favour of permission. Were it otherwise, every Green Belt scheme complying with GB8 would thereby establish very special circumstances, which cannot be the intention of a policy whose premise is that inappropriate development is by definition harmful.
4.8.The Parish Council makes a more fundamental point about the weight this benefit can carry. A percentage of affordable housing is a measure of tenure, not of affordability. Paragraph 7.8 of the Planning Statement relies upon a ”chronic housing affordability crisis in the area". The Housing Needs Assessment prepared for the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan by AECOM, which forms part of the Plan's evidence base, establishes that most of what the statutory definition calls affordable housing would not address that crisis here. No affordable home ownership product is affordable to a household on the average income in this area, with the single exception of shared ownership at a 10 per cent share. The only tenures that deliver affordability to households on lower quartile earnings are Affordable Rent and Social Rent, and then only to households with two such earners. It follows that the weight properly attaching to this benefit depends entirely on the tenure composition of the 50 per cent, and not on the 50 per cent itself. A scheme delivering its affordable housing predominantly as shared ownership at conventional shares would make no contribution to the affordability crisis on which the applicant relies.
4.9.On that question the Planning Statement commits to nothing. Paragraph 7.6 states that "tenure split and mix of affordable homes will be discussed and agreed with the Council". Policy SP4 of the Neighbourhood Plan sets a starting point of 50 per cent affordable homes for rent and 50 per cent affordable homes for sale. The Council is asked to attribute significant weight to a benefit whose composition is undetermined, in circumstances where its own development plan evidence shows that half of the indicative composition would not be affordable to local households.
4.10.The size mix is likewise unaddressed. Policy SP4 seeks a majority of one and two bedroom dwellings, and the Assessment identifies smaller units as a route to improving affordability. These are outline applications with all matters reserved except access. Nothing before the Council secures the mix, and nothing can, absent a condition or planning obligation.
4.11.Finally, NDMP GB8.3 permits a viability assessment demonstrating that it would not be possible to comply with the Golden Rules where a proposal is for a strategic site. The 50 per cent is therefore not immune from later reduction. The Parish Council's position is that the delivery of affordable housing is a real benefit and attracts weight, but that the weight is moderate rather than significant, and is contingent. It asks that, were the Council minded to grant permission, the affordable housing be secured in full, with the rented element secured at not less than the proportion sought by Policy SP4, with the ownership element delivered through products the Assessment identifies as capable of achieving affordability in this area, with a size mix consistent with Policy SP4, and without any viability review mechanism. Absent those securities, the weight properly attaching to this benefit is limited.
4.12.Public open space and play facilities. Provision of accessible green space is required by NDMP GB8.1.c. It is a condition of the exception relied upon, not a benefit. The Parish Council also observes that the land in question is open at present and is crossed by public rights of way. It is not a replacement for the golf course it would displace. It is open space for the residents of the development, not a sports facility, and cannot satisfy NDMP HC7.1.b or HC7.1.d.
4.13.Biodiversity net gain of a minimum of 10 per cent. This is the statutory minimum under the Environment Act 2021 and is mandatory. Delivery of a legal requirement attracts no weight as a planning benefit.
4.14.Construction employment and expenditure by future residents. Temporary, modest in scale, and common to development generally. The second limb duplicates the housing benefit already counted. 4.15.Compliance with the Golden Rules. Listed at paragraph 7.8 as a sixth, separate benefit. It is the label for the affordable housing and open space items already counted, and its inclusion double counts them.
The adverse effects
4.16.Harm to the Green Belt. Substantial, for the reasons set out above. It attracts substantial weight under NDMP GB6.2 and does not appear in the applicant's balance at all. Paragraph 7.7 of the Planning Statement states that, subject to mitigation, "no other harms have been identified". That is wrong. On the Parish Council's case the development is inappropriate, and harm by reason of inappropriateness attracts substantial weight. Independently of that, a conclusion that development is not inappropriate is not a conclusion that it causes no harm. Land which is open ceases to be open when it is built upon, and the NPPF directs that substantial weight be given to harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness.
4.17.Transport. The applicant records no adverse transport effect. That conclusion rests on a Transport Assessment which omits background traffic growth, tests the year of opening rather than five or ten years after completion, does not use the strategic model the Council requested at the pre-application meeting of 15 July 2026, proceeds on a directional distribution inconsistent with observed flows on Wexham Street, does not characterise existing queueing, and assesses eight of the eleven locations of established local concern not at all, including at the school drop off and pick up times when conditions are worst. The Council cannot record zero harm on the strength of an assessment which does not test for it.
4.18.Loss of recreational land and facilities. The application would remove the nine-hole Green Course, the centre’s entry-level course, and with the companion Gallions Park application 18 of the centre’s 27 holes. The applicant treats the loss as having no material impact. For the reasons set out above, no surplus has been clearly shown and nothing is replaced, contrary to NDMP HC7 and Core Policies 5 and 6 of the SBCS. This attracts significant weight.
4.19.Conflict with the development plan. The proposal conflicts with saved Policy GB1 of the SBLP, the development falling within none of its exceptions and, for the reasons given above, within none of the exceptions at NDMP GB7. It conflicts with Core Policy 7 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to promote accessibility to services and facilities. Both policies carry full weight. It also conflicts with Core Policies 5 and 6 of the SBCS, which protect open space, sport and recreational facilities and existing social and green Infrastructure.
4.20.Cumulative effects. The applicant's Environmental Statement treats this application as part of a single project of up to 680 dwellings whose impacts are interrelated. Section 7 of the Planning Statement balances 230. No balance of the project as a whole has been presented to the Council. The only document before the Council which assesses the project as a whole is the Golf Needs Assessment, and it does so in order to conclude that removing 18 of the centre’s 27 holes would have no material impact.
The balance
4.21.On the harm side of the balance stands the loss of 15.69 hectares of open land, and with the companion proposal at Gallions Park 43.7 hectares, in a part of the Metropolitan Green Belt where the built-up edge of Slough already reaches the south-western corner of this site. That harm attracts substantial weight. To it must be added the transport harm which the applicant's assessment does not test for, the loss of 18 holes of a well-used public golf centre without any surplus being shown or any replacement being made, the conflict with the development plan, and the absence of any assessment of the cumulative effects of the project of which this application forms part.
4.22.On the other side, the only benefit attracting significant weight is the delivery of market housing. The affordable housing attracts moderate weight, and moderate weight only if secured in the form which the development plan evidence shows to be effective. The remaining matters relied upon are requirements of the policy under which permission is sought, statutory obligations, or duplications.
4.23.Taken together, these considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Very special circumstances do not exist.
4.24.Were the Council to conclude that the development is not inappropriate, the Parish Council would submit in the alternative that, applying NDMP S5.5, the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the NPPF.
4.25.The Parish Council requests that planning permission be refused.
PLANNING APPLICATION PL/26/06178/OA Gallions Park Land East Of Wexham Street Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire SL3 6ND
Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for principal means of vehicular access to the highway) for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of up to 450 dwellings, including affordable housing, public open space and associated infrastructure.
Although this application is within the boundary of Wexham Parish Council, Stoke Poges Parish Council have submitted an extensive objection as well as the one above for Wexham Grange. Details of the objection are available from the Clerk and on our website.
PL/26/06414/OA Land at Pinewood Nurseries, Wexham Street, Stoke Poges, SL3 6NB
Outline planning application (all matters reserved except for principal points of access), to be implemented in phases, for the redevelopment of the site comprising: a) Demolition of existing buildings and structures. Preparatory works, and the formation of vehicular and pedestrian access from Wexham Street;, b) The provision of flexible commercial floorspace comprising of either , - Up to 16,000 sqm of B2 / B8 floorspace across multiple units; or, - Up to 40,500 sqm of sui generis Data Centre use, up to 5,000sqm of associated energy centre and up to 650sqm sub-station (all including ancillary B1a office space, plant, servicing yards, car and cycle parking, landscaping, drainage and associated infrastructure).
Parish Comments: Object: Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to the proposed development based on the scale and nature of the on-site fossil fuel electricity generation required to operate the proposed data centre and the resulting potential impacts on air quality, human health, residential amenity, noise, climate change, biodiversity and the wider environment.
This is not simply a conventional data centre obtaining its electricity from the national grid. The proposal incorporates a 49.5 MW gas-fired Energy Centre comprising eleven natural gas engines. The applicant’s documents indicate that a firm unrestricted grid connection may not be available for approximately ten years and that the Energy Centre would initially operate as the primary electricity supply. In addition, 43 diesel standby generators are proposed. The environmental effects of this substantial generating infrastructure must therefore form an integral part of the planning assessment.
Scale and Duration of the Gas-Fired Energy Centre:
The proposed Energy Centre comprises eleven gas engines with approximately 49.5 MW of installed generating capacity. This is not merely emergency standby generation.
During the initial phase, the Energy Centre is proposed to provide the primary electricity supply because adequate firm grid capacity is not expected to be available for approximately ten years.
The Council should establish clearly:
* how many gas engines could operate simultaneously;
* their expected annual operating hours;
* whether they would operate continuously overnight;
* the expected duration of each phase of gas generation;
* the circumstances in which the development would move from gas generation to grid electricity;
* whether that transition would be secured by enforceable planning conditions.
Air Pollution and Human Health:
The combustion of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide and other combustion emissions.
Unlike electricity generated remotely and supplied through the national grid, these combustion emissions would be released directly from the proposed development.
This is particularly important because of the proximity of residential properties, including proposed development of 680 new dwellings, Park Hall Clinic and Wexham Park Hospital.
The Council should therefore be satisfied that the air quality assessment represents credible worst-case operating conditions and adequately considers both long-term and short-term exposure at sensitive receptors.
Particular scrutiny should be given to the assumptions concerning the number of gas engines operating simultaneously and their annual hours of operation.
Wexham Park Hospital and Other Sensitive Receptors:
The proximity of Wexham Park Hospital materially increases the sensitivity of the location. The potential effects of additional local air pollution and operational noise should therefore be carefully assessed at the hospital as well as at nearby residential properties and other sensitive receptors.
The Council should satisfy itself that the assessment adequately considers relevant hospital buildings and other locations potentially affected by emissions or operational noise.
Noise from Continuous Gas Generation:
We would like the Council to consider other speculative applications within Stoke Poges for approximately 1700 new dwellings and another pending application for another data center at Sefton Business Park.
Noise from the proposed Energy Centre is an important planning and amenity consideration. The gas engines are fundamentally different from conventional emergency standby generators because they are proposed to provide the site’s primary electricity supply during the initial phase. They may therefore operate for prolonged periods, including throughout the night.
The Council should require the applicant to demonstrate the predicted noise effects under credible worst-case operating conditions, including:
* simultaneous operation of multiple gas engines;
* continuous night time operation;
* engine exhaust and ventilation noise;
* any tonal, intermittent or otherwise distinctive characteristics;
* starting and stopping of generating equipment;
* appropriate octave band source data;
* the effectiveness of proposed acoustic enclosures and silencers; and
* cumulative noise from the Energy Centre together with other data-centre plant.
This concern is supported by published Environment Agency guidance on industrial noise assessment.
The Environment Agency requires industrial noise impact assessments submitted for environmental permitting purposes to use BS 4142 methodology. Its guidance specifically requires consideration of the acoustic characteristics of industrial sound and identifies matters including tonality, impulsivity and intermittency. The Environment Agency also states that worst-case impact scenarios should be considered and recognises that noise-sensitive receptors may be particularly affected where background sound is low or propagation conditions are favourable.
The Environment Agency’s guidance on noise modelling also requires information including plant sound power levels, preferably in octave bands, operating times, receptor locations, modelling assumptions and evidence supporting proposed noise mitigation.
Although environmental permitting and planning are separate regulatory regimes, this published guidance provides useful evidence of the level of technical scrutiny considered appropriate when assessing environmental noise from substantial industrial plant. This distinction is also relevant to National Planning Policy Framework Policy DM7 – Relationship with Other Regulatory Regimes, which addresses the relationship between planning decisions and matters controlled under other regulatory regimes. The existence of a separate environmental permitting regime does not prevent relevant land-use and environmental implications from being material planning considerations.
It therefore reinforces the need for the Council to establish whether the proposed gas engine noise assessment uses representative manufacturer source data, realistic operating conditions and credible night time and worst-case assumptions.
Noise from the 43 Diesel Generators:
The development also proposes 43 diesel standby generators. Although these are principally intended for resilience, testing and maintenance rather than continuous electricity generation, their noise impacts should not be disregarded.
The Council should establish:
* how frequently each generator would be tested;
* the duration of each test;
* permitted testing hours;
* whether testing could occur during evenings, nights or weekends;
* how many generators could be tested simultaneously;
* the maximum number capable of operating simultaneously during an emergency;
* whether diesel operation could coincide with operation of the gas Energy Centre;
* what noise would result from the credible worst-case operating scenario.
There is published evidence demonstrating that consideration of such scenarios is established practice in data centre noise assessment. For example, an Environment Agency acoustic audit concerning the Iron Mountain LON-3 Data Centre considered separate scenarios for normal operation, generator testing and emergency operation involving all diesel generators operating simultaneously.
The Environment Agency’s Acoustics and Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit undertook sensitivity modelling of generator testing and simultaneous emergency operation before reaching its conclusions regarding the acceptability of noise from that development.
Another published UK data centre noise assessment for a Harlow facility considered several generator scenarios, including maintenance testing, full load testing, a simulated mains failure test and an emergency scenario involving all generators operating.
These examples are relevant because they demonstrate that simultaneous generator operation, maintenance testing, grid failure scenarios and emergency operation are recognised matters capable of being explicitly assessed in data centre noise studies.
The Council should therefore establish whether equivalent credible scenarios have been assessed for the 43 diesel generators proposed at Pinewood.
Any restrictions on generator testing which are necessary to make the development acceptable should be secured through enforceable planning conditions rather than existing only as assumptions within the applicant’s noise assessment.
Cumulative Operational Noise:
Individual noise sources should not be considered in isolation. The development contains numerous potentially significant mechanical noise sources, including:
* eleven gas engines;
* 43 diesel generators;
* cooling plant;
* fans and ventilation equipment;
* pumps;
* transformers and electrical equipment;
* exhaust and air-intake systems; and
* other associated mechanical plant.
The applicant’s information identifies 31 free cooling chillers with approximately 62 MW of installed cooling capacity. Consequently, the relevant question is not simply whether one gas engine or one diesel generator can satisfy a particular noise limit.
The Council needs to understand the combined operational sound environment when the data centre and the infrastructure necessary to power and cool it are operating simultaneously.
Published Environment Agency data-centre assessments demonstrate the importance of this approach. For example, the Iron Mountain LON-3 assessment considered normal operation involving chillers and condensers, normal operation combined with generator testing and emergency generator operation. The Environment Agency also requires modelling assumptions to be transparent and requires source data to be representative of the conditions under which equipment is expected to operate. This is particularly important at Pinewood because the gas Energy Centre is proposed to operate as primary generation rather than simply being retained for rare emergencies.
The Council should therefore establish whether the applicant’s cumulative noise assessment includes realistic simultaneous operation of the gas engines, cooling plant and other continuously operating mechanical equipment, together with appropriate scenarios for diesel generator testing and emergency operation.
Night time Noise:
Night time operation deserves specific consideration. A data centre operates continuously and the proposed gas Energy Centre may similarly operate throughout the night.
The Environment Agency’s published guidance recognises that background sound levels vary with time and location and that assessments may need to account for periods of low background sound and worst-case propagation conditions.
The Council should therefore be satisfied that night time background measurements are representative and that the assessment has not obscured potential impacts by relying upon daytime or otherwise unrepresentative background conditions.
The assessment should also consider whether the sound from engines, exhausts, cooling plant and associated equipment would possess characteristics that make it more noticeable than an equivalent broadband environmental sound level.
Biodiversity and Ecological Effects:
The environmental assessment should also consider the effects of the gas-fired Energy Centre on biodiversity and nearby habitats. Combustion emissions containing nitrogen compounds can contribute to atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Sensitive habitats can be affected by increased nutrient deposition and changes in environmental conditions. The ecological assessment should therefore consider not merely the physical footprint of the development but also potential effects arising from:
* NOx emissions;
* nitrogen deposition;
* acid deposition where relevant;
* noise and vibration;
* artificial lighting;
* heat and mechanical infrastructure;
* cumulative effects with other developments.
The Council should establish whether all relevant designated sites, priority habitats and other sensitive ecological receptors have been appropriately considered.
Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Generation:
The proposal would involve substantial on-site combustion of natural gas potentially continuing for a period of approximately ten years before adequate firm grid capacity becomes available. This creates an important distinction between this proposal and a data centre capable of operating from grid electricity from the outset.
The environmental consequences of constructing a data centre in a location where the electricity network cannot presently provide its required firm supply should form part of the planning balance. The Council should require a clear assessment of the expected annual and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Energy Centre and establish what reasonable lower-carbon alternatives have been considered.
Cumulative Effects with Other Development:
This application should not be considered in isolation. This existing concentration is particularly relevant when considering the cumulative environmental and infrastructure effects of further major data-centre development at Pinewood Nurseries as well as together with several near by major housing proposals.
There is a substantial and growing concentration of existing, consented and proposed data centre development across Slough, Iver, Denham and the M40/A40 corridor.
Slough already contains one of the largest concentrations of data centres in Europe, while a number of major data centre developments have been permitted or proposed in the Iver and Iver Heath area.
This concentration is continuing to expand. A further major data centre is currently proposed on land north of the M40 and both sides of Denham Court Drive, Denham (Planning Application PL/26/04446/OA), comprising up to approximately 60,000 sq m of data centre development across two buildings with an anticipated IT load of up to 100 MW.
In addition, the proposed SDC M40 Campus at Wapseys Wood, between the M40 and A40 near Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield, represents a further very substantial data centre proposal. The project has been directed by the Secretary of State into the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime and is reported to comprise approximately 300 MW of data centre capacity together with substantial associated on-site energy generation. The applicant’s Environmental Statement uses a general cumulative search radius of approximately 3 km, whereas significant data centre development extends considerably further across the surrounding area. The Council should therefore consider whether the geographical scope of the cumulative assessment is adequate for each relevant environmental and infrastructure effect.
Particular consideration should be given to cumulative:8
* air pollution;
* greenhouse-gas emissions;
* noise;
* electricity demand;
* gas demand;
* water demand;
* ecological effects;
* traffic and infrastructure impacts;
* effects upon surrounding communities.
National and Local Planning Policy:
The application should be considered against the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) and the relevant policies of the development plan, including the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan. The Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 – Regulation 19 is also a material consideration, with the weight to be afforded to its emerging policies being a matter for the decision maker.
Particular weight should be given to policies concerning pollution, air quality, protection of human health and amenity, noise, climate change, biodiversity, ecological protection, landscape and cumulative environmental effects.
The Council should demonstrate clearly how the proposed long duration of approximately 10 years of on-site fossil-fuel generation accords with these policy objectives.
Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 – Regulation 19:
The proposal should also be considered in the context of Buckinghamshire Council’s Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 (Regulation 19). While the emerging Plan is not yet adopted and the weight to be afforded to it is a matter for the decision maker, it is relevant that the Council has introduced a specific Policy EC5 – Data Centres, reflecting the particular infrastructure and environmental issues associated with this form of development.
The emerging policy requires consideration of whether the electricity, digital connectivity and water requirements of data centres can be met without adverse impacts upon supplies available to local residents and businesses, while also seeking to maximise sustainable heating and cooling technologies and renewable and low-carbon energy.
This is particularly relevant at Pinewood Nurseries because the applicant’s own documents indicate that a firm unrestricted grid connection may not be available for approximately ten years, with the proposed solution being a 49.5 MW on-site gas-fired Energy Centre comprising eleven gas engines, initially operating as the development’s primary electricity supply. This raises an important question as to whether a location which cannot presently provide the electricity infrastructure required by the development without potentially prolonged reliance upon substantial on-site fossil fuel generation represents an appropriate and sustainable location for such a development.
The issue is reinforced by emerging Policy NE21 – Pollution, Air Quality and Contaminated Land, which addresses the effects of potentially polluting and significant noise-generating development, and by the emerging Plan’s wider objectives concerning health, climate change and environmental protection.
The Council should therefore consider the combined implications of the proposed gas generation and associated 43 diesel standby generators, including NOx and other atmospheric emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, operational and nighttime noise, effects upon nearby residents and Wexham Park Hospital, and potential effects upon sensitive ecological receptors.
The relevance of the emerging Local Plan is not that it automatically determines this application, but that Buckinghamshire Council’s own current policy direction recognises electricity capacity, low-carbon energy, pollution, noise and infrastructure availability as important considerations in determining the suitability of data centre development. In this context, the Council should require the applicant to demonstrate clearly why Pinewood Nurseries is an appropriate location when the development apparently cannot obtain the firm grid electricity it requires without relying upon a substantial fossil fuel generating installation for potentially a decade.
National Planning Policy Framework – August 2026:
The following national decision-making policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) are considered particularly relevant to this application:
* DM6 – Use of Planning Conditions and Obligations – relevant where restrictions on gas-engine operation, generator testing, noise mitigation, operating hours or transition to grid electricity are necessary to make the development acceptable. The policy requires planning conditions to satisfy the applicable statutory requirements and to be sufficiently precise and reasonable.
* DM7 – Relationship with Other Regulatory Regimes – relevant because environmental permitting and planning are separate regulatory regimes. The policy confirms the relationship between planning decisions and matters subject to other regulatory controls. The existence of an environmental permitting regime does not prevent relevant land-use implications from being material planning considerations.
* CC2 – Mitigation of Climate Change – requires relevant development proposals to contribute to climate-change mitigation and the transition to net zero, including through energy- and resource-conserving design and consideration of opportunities to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.
* E2 – Meeting the Need for Business Land and Premises – relevant to the specific locational requirements of data-centre development and expressly recognises the importance of infrastructure availability, including adequate electricity-grid connections, together with opportunities to co-locate large-scale generators and users of power such as data centres.
* P3 – Living Conditions and Pollution – of particular relevance to the proposed Energy Centre and diesel generators. Development must be appropriate for its location having regard to the likely effects, including cumulative effects, of pollution upon health, living conditions and the natural environment, including effects occurring off-site.
* P3 – Air Quality provisions – relevant to NOx and other combustion emissions and their cumulative effects, including consideration of relevant air-quality objectives, sensitive receptors and the effects of development upon local air quality.
* P3 – Noise provisions – relevant to operational, nighttime and cumulative industrial noise and to ensuring that adverse noise effects on health and living conditions are appropriately avoided or mitigated.
* N2 – Improving the Natural Environment – requires development to consider habitats and landscape character, conserve and enhance important natural features, strengthen ecological networks and minimise adverse biodiversity impacts. It also recognises the role of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in environmental protection, pollution management and climate-change mitigation.
These national decision-making policies should be read together and alongside the statutory development plan when determining the application.
Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan – Made Plan:
The Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan is part of the statutory Development Plan. Its policies are:
* SP1 – Design Code – Stoke Poges Sites
* SP2 – Design Code – Wexham Street Site
* SP3 – Sefton Park
* SP4 – Housing Mix and Tenure
* SP5 – Addressing the Energy Performance Gap
* SP6 – Design Code – Parish Wide
* SP7 – Local Heritage Assets
* SP8 – Shared Woodland Area
* SP9 – Green Infrastructure
* SP10 – Local Green Spaces
* SP11 – Local Access Network
* SP12 – Dark Skies
For the matters raised in this representation, particular consideration should be given to SP5, SP6, SP8, SP9, SP10, SP11 and SP12, insofar as they are applicable to the application site and the environmental effects of the proposed development.
Information and Safeguards Required Before Determination:
Before determining the application, we ask Buckinghamshire Council to satisfy itself that the applicant has adequately demonstrated:
1. The realistic number of gas engines that would operate simultaneously and their annual operating hours.
2. The air quality consequences of a credible worst-case gas generation scenario.
3. The effects upon Wexham Park Hospital, nearby homes and other sensitive receptors.
4. The cumulative noise from the gas engines, diesel generators, cooling equipment and other mechanical plant.
5. The night time noise impact of prolonged gas engine operation.
6. The frequency, duration and permitted hours of testing of the 43 diesel generators.
7. The noise consequences of credible simultaneous diesel generator operation.
8. Whether appropriate manufacturer sound power and octave band data have been used.
9. Whether appropriate corrections have been considered for tonal, intermittent or otherwise distinctive industrial sound.
10. Whether assumptions concerning acoustic enclosures, silencers and other mitigation are supported by appropriate technical specifications.
11. Whether all assumptions necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels would be secured through enforceable planning conditions.
12. The effects of NOx and atmospheric nitrogen deposition upon sensitive habitats.
13. The cumulative environmental effects alongside other major developments.
14. The expected annual and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions from on-site generation.
15. Why substantial on-site fossil fuel generation is necessary and what reasonable alternatives have been considered.
16. How and when reliance upon the gas Energy Centre will cease once adequate grid capacity becomes available.
Where the acceptability of the development depends upon particular operating assumptions, those assumptions should not simply remain statements within technical reports. They should, where appropriate, be secured through enforceable planning conditions or obligations.
Conclusion:
The proposed gas-fired Energy Centre should not be treated merely as an engineering solution to a temporary shortage of grid capacity. It is a substantial component of the proposed development with potential consequences for air quality, human health, residential amenity, noise, climate change and biodiversity.
The presence of eleven gas engines together with 43 diesel standby generators means that the environmental effects of 54 combustion engines need to be understood alongside the substantial cooling and other mechanical infrastructure required by the data centre.
Published Environment Agency guidance and assessments from other UK data centre developments demonstrate that generator testing, simultaneous generator operation, night time conditions, acoustic characteristics and credible worst-case operating scenarios are legitimate and established matters for detailed noise assessment.
Those examples do not establish what the noise level at Pinewood will be. They do, however, demonstrate why the scale and operating regime of the proposed Pinewood generating installation requires rigorous site-specific assessment.
The proximity of Wexham Park Hospital and residential properties, as well as pending applications for an additional 680 new dwellings, makes careful assessment of both air pollution and noise particularly important.
The Council should therefore be satisfied, on the basis of robust evidence and credible worst-case operating assumptions, that the proposed Energy Centre, diesel generation, cooling plant and associated equipment would not result in unacceptable effects upon human health, residential amenity or the natural environment.
If those matters have not been adequately demonstrated before determination, that deficiency should weigh significantly against the grant of planning permission.
PL/26/06472/TP Holly Tree House, West End Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LZ
T1 Robinia - Crown Reduction - Reduce height by up to 3m and lateral spread on all sides by up to 2m, to finished crown dimensions of 12m height and 6m lateral spread. Remove major deadwood. Reason - To manage the size of the tree and reduce stresses on stem which has a lean to the south.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
PL/26/06515/FA 10 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LD
Single storey front, side and rear extension, front roof dormer, two storey part rear extension.
Parish Comments: No Comment.
PL/26/06775/FA 2 Elizabeth Way, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LQ.
Single-storey side/rear extension.
Parish Comments: Object
Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to this application on design, scale, massing and cumulative development grounds.
The principal concern is not simply the additional floorspace proposed in isolation. The dwelling has already been extended, and the correct planning assessment should therefore consider the cumulative architectural effect of the existing and proposed additions upon the original dwelling.
In our view, the further extension would result in an excessively complicated and visually heavy composition, particularly in terms of its overall built form and roofscape. Rather than appearing as a clearly subordinate and coherent addition, the cumulative extensions risk overwhelming the form and proportions of the original dwelling.
We are especially concerned about the need of a second front door if the primary use is an extra bedroom.
1. South Bucks District Local Plan – Policies EP3 and H11
Policy EP3 requires development to achieve an acceptable standard of design and to respect the character and appearance of its surroundings.
Policy H11 – Residential Extensions is particularly relevant. Residential extensions are expected to be integral to the dwelling and to harmonise with the existing building in terms of their scale, height, form and design.
The application should therefore be assessed against the original dwelling and the cumulative effect of all extensions, rather than treating the current proposal as an isolated single storey addition. The dwelling has previously been extended. Adding further development to its side and rear would materially increase the overall footprint and visual mass of the property. Of particular concern is the resulting extensive and complicated roofscape. The cumulative result does not, in our view, sufficiently preserve the architectural hierarchy between the original dwelling and its subsequent additions. The original house should remain readily identifiable as the dominant element.
The proposal therefore conflicts with the design objectives of Policies EP3 and H11.
2. Appendix 8 – House Extensions Design Guidance
Appendix 8 of the South Bucks District Local Plan remains directly relevant when considering the appropriate form and design of domestic extensions. The guidance seeks extensions which respect the proportions, architectural character and roof form of the original dwelling. This application should therefore be considered cumulatively with the extensions already carried out at the property.
The issue is not merely whether each individual component could be regarded as acceptable when viewed separately. The proper question is whether the dwelling, as extended and proposed to be further extended, retains a coherent architectural form in which the original building remains dominant. The proposed works add to an already altered building and would create an unnecessarily extensive and complicated roofscape. This produces a visually cluttered composition rather than a simple, legible and subordinate extension to the original house.
3. Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan – Policy SP6 and Design Code
Policy SP6 – Design Code: Parish Wide requires development proposals within Stoke Poges and Wexham Street to have full regard to the Stoke Poges Design Code, taking account of the location, scale and nature of the development. The locally specific Design Code is particularly important in this case.
Design Code LB03 – Scale, Massing and Roofscape
Design Code LB03 addresses matters including scale, massing and roofscape. The proposal should not therefore be assessed merely on the basis that it is single storey.
Its planning impact arises from the combination of:
- the extent of the existing dwelling;
- previous extensions;
- the additional side and rear footprint;
- the relationship between the proposed addition and the original building;
- the overall massing of the resulting dwelling; and
- the cumulative size, complexity and visual prominence of the roofscape.
Taken together, these elements result in a building which is increasingly dominated by additions rather than retaining the clear form and proportions of the original dwelling. The extensive roofscape is a particular concern. It gives the development a sprawling and architecturally complicated appearance inconsistent with the objective of achieving coherent built form. The proposal therefore conflicts with the principles of LB03.
Design Code LB04 – Extensions, Conversions and Infill
Design Code LB04 is particularly relevant. It establishes the important principle that:
“The original building should remain the dominant element of the property, in terms of scale and form, regardless of the number of extensions. ”It further requires extensions to be appropriate to the scale, massing and character of the main building and expressly identifies overly complicated extensions and associated roof forms as something which should be avoided.
The planning authority should therefore examine the evolution of this dwelling and determine whether the original building would genuinely remain the dominant element after the latest extension. It is the Parish Councils veiw that the cumulative scale of development has reached the point where the original dwelling is being subsumed within successive additions. The proposed side/rear extension would exacerbate that problem and create an increasingly complicated roof form. It therefore fails to demonstrate the architectural subordination sought by LB04.
4. National Planning Policy Framework – August 2026
National decision-making Policy DP3 – Key principles for well-designed places requires development proposals to respond to their context, including the history, character and features of their site and setting, so that development integrates with and enhances its surroundings. DP3 also addresses built form and identity, including the requirement to create visually attractive, distinctive and characterful development. Most importantly, DP3 provides that development proposals should be refused where, without clear justification, they conflict with its contextual/design principles or with explicit design standards contained within the Development Plan, including locally specific design policies, guides and codes. That gives particular significance to the Stoke Poges Design Code in determining this application.
The proposed development does not, in our view, achieve a sufficiently coherent relationship with the original dwelling. The cumulative scale, massing and extensive roofscape produce an overdeveloped and architecturally complicated form rather than a well-integrated and subordinate addition.
5: Emerging Local Plan for Buckinghamshire – Regulation 19
The Council has now published the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan for Buckinghamshire.
Although this emerging Local Plan has not yet been adopted and therefore should not be treated as carrying the same statutory status as the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan or saved adopted Local Plan policies, it is nevertheless a relevant emerging policy consideration to which appropriate weight may be given according to its stage of preparation, consistency with national policy and any unresolved objections. The Regulation 19 Local Plan and accompanying Buckinghamshire Design Code reinforce the direction of travel towards development which responds positively to context, character, built form and local identity and achieves a high standard of design. Those emerging principles reinforce, rather than displace, the locally specific requirements already established by the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.
Emerging Policies SP14 and BE6
Further support for these concerns is found within the Regulation 19 Publication version of the emerging Local Plan for Buckinghamshire, in particular Policy SP14 – Built Environment, Placemaking and Design and
Policy BE6 – Design of Developments.
Policy BE6 requires new development proposals to strongly align with the Buckinghamshire Local Design Code and expressly requires consideration of Context, Identity and Built Form. In particular, development is expected to respond positively to its local and wider context, enhance local character and identity and establish a coherent built form which integrates appropriately with existing development.
The supporting text to BE6 reinforces the requirement for a design led approach which respects, maintains and enhances the character of Buckinghamshire's towns and villages. It further establishes that development must positively contribute to the character of the built environment, having regard to local context and surrounding amenity. These emerging requirements are directly relevant to the present application.
The concern at is not simply the additional floorspace proposed by this individual application. It is the cumulative architectural consequence of adding a further side/rear extension to a dwelling which has already been extended. When the existing and proposed extensions are considered together, the resulting building has an increasingly extensive and complicated footprint and roofscape. Rather than reading as a coherent original dwelling with clearly subordinate additions, the successive extensions result in an increasingly fragmented and visually complicated built form. This is difficult to reconcile with the Context, Identity and Built Form requirements of emerging Policy BE6.
Importantly, BE6 should also be read alongside the locally specific requirements of the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, particularly Policy SP6 and Design Codes LB03 and LB04.
The Regulation 19 Local Plan therefore reinforces the same fundamental design objection arising under the adopted Neighbourhood Plan: further extension of this already extended dwelling should not result in the loss of a coherent architectural form, an unnecessarily complicated roofscape, or the original dwelling ceasing to be the visually dominant element. Appropriate weight should therefore be afforded to emerging Policies SP14 and BE6 as material considerations, having regard to the advanced Regulation 19 stage of the Local Plan and the extent to which the relevant provisions are consistent with national planning policy.
6: Cumulative Development
We request that the case officer assesses the planning history of this property and the cumulative effect of previous extensions together with this application. Successive applications should not result in the gradual erosion of the original dwelling's architectural form simply because each individual addition may appear relatively modest when considered independently. The relevant Stoke Poges Design Code expressly requires the original building to remain dominant regardless of the number of extensions. That test should be applied rigorously here.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we consider that the proposal represents an excessive further addition to an already extended dwelling. The principal harm arises from its cumulative scale, massing and particularly its extensive and complicated roofscape. The development would fail to maintain a clear and appropriate architectural hierarchy between the original dwelling and its extensions and would result in an increasingly sprawling and visually confused built form.
The proposal is therefore considered contrary to:
South Bucks District Local Plan
- Policy EP3
- Policy H11
- Appendix 8 – House Extensions Design Guidance
Made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan
- Policy SP6 – Design Code: Parish Wide
- Design Code LB03 – Scale, Massing and Roofscape
- Design Code LB04 – Extensions, Conversions and Infill
National Planning Policy Framework – August 2026
- Policy DP3 – Key Principles for Well-Designed Places
The proposal is also inconsistent with the design direction established by the emerging Local Plan for Buckinghamshire Regulation 19 and accompanying Buckinghamshire Design Code. SP14 and BE6.
We therefore respectfully request that Buckinghamshire Council refuses planning permission.
If the case officer is nevertheless minded to approve the application, we request that the officer report expressly addresses:
- the planning and extension history of the dwelling;
- the cumulative increase in built form;
- whether the original dwelling remains the dominant element as required by LB04;
- the cumulative scale and massing of the resulting building;
- the extent and complexity of the resulting roofscape; and
- how the proposal can be reconciled with Policy SP6 and Design Codes LB03 and LB04 of the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.
PL/26/06943/FA 15 Clevehurst Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4EP.
Single storey rear extension, first floor front and side extensions, double storey front extension, alterations to roof form and external fenestration following demolition of existing single storey rear store (previously approved under PL/26/02169/FA.
Parish Comments: Object
The Parish Council acknowledges the previous approval under PL/26/02169/FA. However, the current application represents a further and substantial enlargement of the dwelling, most notably through the introduction of the double-storey front extension. The proposal must therefore be considered in terms of the cumulative scale, massing, design and visual impact of the dwelling as now proposed.
CHARACTER OF CLEVEHURST CLOSE
Clevehurst Close has a distinctive character which is specifically identified within the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.
The Neighbourhood Plan identifies Clevehurst Close and Freemans Close as Character Area CA1.2. The defining characteristics include:
- low-density development;
- large detached houses;
- spacious gardens and wide plots;
- individually designed houses within Clevehurst Close;
- front and rear gardens; and
- mature deciduous trees within gardens.
The Parish Council considers this locally specific character assessment to be particularly important in determining this application.
The Parish Council fully recognises that architectural individuality is an established characteristic of Clevehurst Close. The objection is therefore not based upon the fact that the proposed architectural treatment differs from neighbouring properties. Rather, the concern is that the scale, massing, proportions and architectural treatment of the enlarged dwelling, and its resulting relationship with its plot, would fail to respect the spacious, low-density character specifically identified in the Neighbourhood Plan.
SCALE, MASSING AND PLOT WIDTH
The cumulative extent of development proposed is substantial.
When the single storey rear extension, first floor front and side extensions, double storey front extension, altered roof form and changes to the fenestration are considered together, they would result in a dwelling of significantly greater scale and visual mass. Of particular concern is the extent to which the resulting building would occupy the width of the plot. The characteristic spaciousness of Clevehurst Close does not arise simply because its houses are detached. It derives from the relationship between substantial individual houses and their generous plots, including the visual space around and between buildings. The proposal would substantially increase the apparent width, bulk and mass of the dwelling and diminish that characteristic sense of spaciousness. The resulting development would appear disproportionately large in relation to its plot and would have an over-dominant presence within the street scene.
DOUBLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND STREET SCENE
The proposed double storey front extension is particularly concerning because it materially changes the principal elevation and therefore the relationship of the dwelling with Clevehurst Close. Rather than appearing as a subordinate addition, the front extension becomes a significant component of the architectural composition and contributes substantially to the increased visual bulk and prominence of the building. In combination with the first-floor side extensions and altered roof form, it would produce an assertive and over scaled frontage which would fail to respect the established relationship between houses and their plots within Clevehurst Close.
ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT, FENESTRATION AND COLUMNS
The Parish Council also has concerns regarding the architectural design of the proposed dwelling. These concerns should not be interpreted as an objection to contemporary architecture or architectural individuality. The Neighbourhood Plan itself recognises that the houses in Clevehurst Close are individually designed. However, architectural individuality does not remove the requirement for development to respond appropriately to its context.
In this case, the combination of substantial building mass, very large areas of glazing, substantial columns and the strongly expressed front elevation would produce a particularly heavy and monumental architectural composition. The scale of the windows and columns reinforces rather than reduces the apparent mass of the building. In combination with the substantial extensions, the resulting frontage would have an imposing visual presence within the street. The planning concern is therefore not architectural style in isolation, but whether the design, scale, proportions, massing and architectural detailing collectively respond appropriately to the established character of Clevehurst Close. The Parish Council considers that they do not.
SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
Policy EP3 – The Use, Design and Layout of Development
EP3 requires development to be acceptable in terms of its use, design and layout and its relationship with the character and amenities of the site and surrounding area. The Parish Council considers that the cumulative scale, width, massing and architectural treatment of the proposed development would fail to respond satisfactorily to the established character of Clevehurst Close.
Policy H11 – Residential Extensions
H11 requires extensions to integrate with and harmonise with the existing dwelling, including in terms of scale, height, form and design. The cumulative extent of the proposed additions would result in a substantially enlarged dwelling in which the extensions would no longer appear sufficiently subordinate to, or harmonious with, the original building.
Appendix 8 – Residential Extension/Design Guidance
The proposal should additionally be considered against the detailed design principles contained within Appendix 8, particularly those concerning the scale, proportions and visual relationship of extensions with the original dwelling and surrounding development.
SOUTH BUCKS CORE STRATEGY
Core Policy CP8 – Built and Historic Environment is also relevant.
CP8 seeks to ensure that development respects and enhances the character of the built environment. The Parish Council considers that a proposal of this cumulative scale and massing, occupying such a substantial proportion of the width of the plot, would fail to respond positively to the established low-density and spacious character of Clevehurst Close.
STOKE POGES NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Policy SP6 – Design: Development should achieve high-quality design which responds positively to local character and context.
Design Code LB03 – Scale, Massing and Roofscape: The scale and massing of development should respond appropriately to its surroundings and respect the prevailing built form and roofscape. The Parish Council considers that the cumulative scale, width and massing of the proposed extensions and altered roof form would not achieve this.
Design Code LB04 – Extensions, Conversions and Infill: LB04 is particularly relevant to this proposal. Extensions should be appropriate to the scale, massing and character of the principal building and should complement the streetscape and village setting. The original building should remain the dominant element of the property in terms of scale and form. The Parish Council considers that the cumulative additions would materially change the proportions and architectural composition of the dwelling and create a substantially larger and more dominant building. This would fail to respond satisfactorily to the documented characteristics of Character Area CA1.2 – Clevehurst Close and Freemans Close, particularly its low density development, large detached houses and spacious, wide plots.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The proposal should be considered against Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework – Achieving Well-Designed Places, and particularly paragraphs 135 and 139.
Paragraph 135 requires development, amongst other matters, to:
- function well and add to the overall quality of the area;
- be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate and effective landscaping;
- be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting;
- establish or maintain a strong sense of place; and
- create places with a high standard of amenity.
The Parish Council considers that the proposal does not satisfy these objectives.
The NPPF does not require new development to copy neighbouring buildings. However, contextual design requires more than architectural imitation. Development should respond to identifiable characteristics of its locality, including scale, massing, proportions, building to plot relationships and landscape setting.
Those characteristics are particularly clearly identified in this location by the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan and its CA1.2 character assessment.
Paragraph 139 is also particularly relevant. It provides that development which is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design. There is a detailed and recently adopted local design framework applicable to this site. The Parish Council considers that the proposal fails to respond adequately to those locally specific requirements.
EMERGING LOCAL PLAN FOR BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 2045 – REGULATION 19
The Parish Council also draws attention to the Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 – Regulation 19 Publication Version.
The Parish Council recognises that the Regulation 19 Plan is an emerging plan and does not presently form part of the adopted Development Plan. Its policies should therefore be afforded weight appropriate to the stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections and their consistency with national policy. Nevertheless, the following emerging policies are directly relevant and reinforce the established policy approach.
Emerging Policy SP14 – Placemaking and Design
SP14 requires development to achieve a high standard of design and placemaking and to contribute positively to the quality, character and identity of Buckinghamshire's towns, villages and landscapes. Importantly for this application, it requires development to be design led and context responsive, informed by the character, scale and form of existing places, while maintaining or enhancing local distinctiveness. The Parish Council considers that the excessive cumulative scale, massing and plot coverage of the proposal would fail to achieve these objectives.
Emerging Policy BE5 – Design of Developments
BE5 requires development to respond to its context and achieve well-designed outcomes, including compliance with the emerging Buckinghamshire Design Code. The supporting text recognises the distinctive character of Buckinghamshire's different towns and villages and the importance of development responding positively to local context. The Parish Council considers that the proposal fails to respond adequately to the particularly well defined character of Clevehurst Close.
ECOLOGY AND SSSI
The Parish Council also notes the site's proximity to Stoke Common SSSI. In this respect, regard should be had to emerging Policy SP13 – Natural Environment and Climate Resilience and emerging Policy NE4 – Biodiversity: Protection and Enhancement of Sites and Habitats of High Biodiversity and Geodiversity Importance of the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
Policy NE4 expressly recognises Sites of Special Scientific Interest as nationally important designated sites. The Parish Council therefore simply requests that the Local Planning Authority has appropriate regard to the proximity of the SSSI and any potential impact upon that designated site when determining the application.
CONCLUSION
The Parish Council considers that this application represents an unacceptable cumulative enlargement of the dwelling.
The objection is not to architectural individuality or contemporary design in principle. Indeed, the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan expressly identifies individually designed houses as a characteristic of Clevehurst Close.
The concern arises from the cumulative effect of:
- the substantial increase in built form;
- the extent to which development spreads across the width of the plot;
- the double storey front extension;
- the overall scale and massing of the extensions and altered roof form;
- the very large areas of glazing;
- the substantial columns and strongly expressed front elevation; and
- the consequent erosion of the characteristic spacious relationship between dwelling and plot.
Taken together, these elements would result in an over dominant and visually intrusive form of development which would fail to respond satisfactorily to the established and documented character of Clevehurst Close.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposal conflicts with:
South Bucks District Local Plan
- Policy EP3 – The Use, Design and Layout of Development;
- Policy H11 – Residential Extensions; and
- Appendix 8 residential design guidance.
South Bucks Core Strategy
- CP8 – Built and Historic Environment.
Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan
- Policy SP6 – Design;
- Design Code LB03 – Scale, Massing and Roofscape;
- Design Code LB04 – Extensions, Conversions and Infill; and
- the locally identified characteristics of CA1.2 – Clevehurst Close and Freemans Close.
National Planning Policy Framework
- Section 12 – Achieving Well-Designed Places, particularly paragraphs 135 and 139.
Emerging Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 – Regulation 19
- SP14 – Placemaking and Design;
- BE5 – Design of Developments; and, in respect of the limited SSSI consideration,
- SP13 – Natural Environment and Climate Resilience; and
- NE4 – Biodiversity: Protection and Enhancement of Sites and Habitats of High Biodiversity and Geodiversity Importance.
PL/26/06948/FA The Ledgers , Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PG
Demolish the existing roof in order to create a new first floor and accommodation in the loft space and creation of a ground floor rear extension.
Parish Comments: Object
GREEN BELT – FUNDAMENTAL POLICY CONSIDERATION
The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. This is a fundamental consideration in the determination of this application.
The Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan confirms that while the main settlement of Stoke Poges is inset from the Green Belt, the built-up areas of Park Road (B416) are washed over by the Green Belt. The application must therefore be assessed not simply as a householder design proposal, but against the statutory Development Plan and national policies controlling development within the Green Belt. The 50% rule must be considered. The proposal is substantial. It involves demolition of the existing roof in order to create a new first floor, further accommodation within the loft space and a ground floor rear extension. This is a split plot that is narrow in shape. The correct assessment must consider the cumulative effect of all of those works upon the size, scale, height, massing and spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt, especially when taking into account the property known as The Annex.
Saved South Bucks Local Plan Policy GB1 – Control of Development in the Green Belt
GB1 establishes the general control over development within the Green Belt and identifies limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings as a category of development which may be acceptable, subject to the detailed requirements of the Plan. Importantly, GB1 does not provide an unrestricted permission for enlargement of an existing dwelling merely because residential development already exists on the site.
The policy requires, amongst other matters, that:
- development should not adversely affect the character or amenities of the Green Belt;
- the scale, height, layout, siting, form and design of development should not adversely affect the character or amenities of the Green Belt or locality;
- extensions to existing buildings should harmonise with the scale, height, form and design of the original building; and
- proposals must comply with the other relevant policies of the Development Plan.
Those requirements are particularly important in the present case.
The proposal does not simply comprise a modest ground floor addition to the existing dwelling. It involves removing the existing roof, introducing an entirely new first floor and then providing further accommodation within a substantial replacement roof.
The Council should therefore assess whether the resulting development can properly be characterised as a limited and proportionate alteration or extension to the existing dwelling when its cumulative increase in floorspace, volume, height and apparent mass is considered.
Effect upon Green Belt openness
The assessment of Green Belt impact should not be confined to additional footprint.
The existing dwelling is a chalet bungalow. Its relatively low built form is relevant to its existing effect upon Green Belt openness.
The proposed development would substantially alter that relationship by raising the building to create an additional first floor and then introducing further accommodation within a substantial replacement roof.
Accordingly, even where part of the additional accommodation occupies approximately the same footprint as the existing dwelling, the increase in three dimensional built volume, height and mass may materially increase the building's impact upon openness.
The Council should therefore assess both the spatial and visual dimensions of openness, including:
- the increase in overall building height;
- the increase in built volume;
- the increase in upper floor mass;
- the scale and volume of the replacement roof;
- the visibility of the enlarged dwelling from Park Road and surrounding land;
- the degree to which the existing low chalet-bungalow form would be replaced by a substantially taller and more imposing building; and
- the cumulative effect of the first-floor, loft and rear extensions rather than assessing each component separately.
This is particularly important because the Green Belt designation applies to the site itself.
Scale of the original dwelling
For the Green Belt assessment, the Council should clearly identify the original building and quantify the proposed enlargement against it. The officer's assessment should provide, or verify from the submitted plans:
- the original dwelling's gross external floorspace;
- its existing floorspace;
- the proposed floorspace;
- the original building volume;
- the proposed building volume;
- the original ridge and eaves heights;
- the proposed ridge and eaves heights;
- the percentage increase in floorspace over the original dwelling;
- the percentage increase in built volume over the original dwelling; and
- any previous extensions which have already increased the dwelling beyond its original form.
This exercise is important because the Green Belt assessment should not simply compare the proposal with the dwelling as it happens to exist today if that dwelling has itself previously been enlarged. The cumulative enlargement of the original building is the relevant planning consideration. Without this information it is difficult to reach a properly evidenced conclusion that the proposed development constitutes a limited or proportionate enlargement appropriate to its Green Belt location.
Relationship with Policy EP3 and Policy H11
Policy EP3 requires the scale, layout, siting, height, design and external appearance of development to be compatible with the character of the site, adjoining development and locality.
Policy H11 requires alterations and extensions to harmonise with the existing dwelling in terms of scale, height, form and design.
The proposal involves the fundamental alteration of the dwelling's vertical proportions.
A chalet bungalow is characterised in significant part by its low eaves and accommodation contained within or closely associated with its roof form.
Removing that roof, constructing an additional first floor and then introducing further accommodation within a new roof represents a substantial alteration to that established architectural form.
The issue is therefore not simply whether the replacement roof is attractively detailed.
The Council must consider whether the cumulative height, massing and complicated roofscape produce an enlarged dwelling which remains genuinely subordinate and harmonious with the original building and appropriate to its Green Belt setting.
Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan – Policy SP6 and Design Code
Policy SP6 and the accompanying Parish-wide Design Code are directly relevant to the design assessment. In particular, Design Code LB03 addresses local vernacular, scale, massing and roof scape. The proposed development should therefore demonstrate that its substantially increased upper-floor mass and replacement roof respond positively to the established character and proportions of the dwelling and its surroundings. The complicated roofscape is important in this respect.
The combination of an additional first floor and further accommodation within the roof risks producing a top-heavy and visually dominant building in place of the existing lower chalet bungalow form. The design assessment should consider the composition as a whole rather than determining that individual roof elements are acceptable when considered separately.
National Planning Policy Framework 2026 – Green Belt
The application site lies within the Green Belt and the proposal must therefore be assessed against the national Green Belt policies contained within Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026.
Policy GB6 – Control of Development in the Green Belt
Policy GB6 establishes the national approach to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Where development constitutes inappropriate development, substantial weight is to be given to the resulting Green Belt harm and permission should not be granted unless very special circumstances exist sufficient to clearly outweigh that harm together with any other identified harm.
Policy GB7 – Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt
Policy GB7 is particularly relevant to this application because it addresses the extension, alteration and replacement of existing buildings within the Green Belt.
For an extension or alteration to fall within the category of development which is not inappropriate, it must not result in a disproportionate increase in size over and above the size of the original building.
This test requires careful consideration in the present case.
The proposal involves substantially more than a conventional modest extension to the existing chalet bungalow. It involves demolition of the existing roof, construction of a new first floor, further accommodation within the replacement roof and an additional rear extension.
The Local Planning Authority should therefore establish clearly:
- the size and form of the original building for the purposes of Policy GB7;
- all subsequent extensions and enlargements which have already occurred;
- the cumulative increase in floorspace over the original building;
- the cumulative increase in building volume;
- the increase in footprint;
- the increase in ridge and eaves height; and
- the overall change in the three-dimensional scale and mass of the dwelling.
The assessment should not be confined to the additional ground floor footprint. The proposed new first floor and enlarged roof represent substantial additional built volume and materially change the scale and vertical proportions of the existing chalet bungalow.
The relevant question under Policy GB7 is whether the cumulative proposal results in a disproportionate increase in size over and above the size of the original building.
Heritage – Setting only
For accuracy, the objection does not contend that the application site lies within a Conservation Area. The Council's statutory notice nevertheless identifies application PL/26/06948/FA as affecting the setting of a Conservation Area and a Listed Building. That distinction is important.
The relevant heritage consideration is therefore the effect of the proposed development upon the setting and significance of those designated heritage assets, rather than a claim that the property itself is situated within a Conservation Area. The substantial increase in the height, mass and roofscape of the dwelling should consequently be assessed for its effect upon the contribution which its site and surroundings make to the setting of the identified heritage assets.
Cumulative planning assessment
The proposal should ultimately be assessed as one cumulative development. The starting point is a chalet bungalow within the Green Belt.
The proposal would:
- demolish its existing roof;
- create a new first floor;
- introduce further accommodation within a replacement roof;
- materially alter its vertical proportions and roofscape; and
- provide an additional rear extension.
The planning question is therefore not simply whether an existing dwelling may, in principle, be extended. The relevant question is whether the total resultant development, having regard to its increase over the original building, remains a limited and proportionate enlargement which preserves Green Belt openness and character and achieves the high standard of locally responsive design required by the Development Plan. The Council is respectfully requested to establish the original building baseline and undertake a transparent assessment of the percentage increases in floorspace, volume, footprint and height before determining the application. If that assessment demonstrates that the development amounts to a disproportionate enlargement of the original building, or that its additional height, volume and mass causes material harm to Green Belt openness, that harm should be given the weight required by national Green Belt policy.
Conclusion
The principal objections are therefore:
Green Belt: the substantial cumulative enlargement, additional storey, increased height and roof volume and their effect upon openness;
Scale and massing: the transformation of a relatively low chalet bungalow into a substantially taller and more imposing dwelling;
Roofscape: an unnecessarily complicated and visually dominant roof composition;
Design: failure to respect adequately the scale, proportions and architectural form of the existing dwelling and its context; and
Heritage setting: the effect of the substantially enlarged built form upon the setting and significance of the Conservation Area and Listed Building identified in the Council's statutory notice.
The proposal should be assessed against Saved South Bucks Local Plan Policies GB1, EP3 and H11, South Bucks Core Strategy CP8, Policy SP6 and the Design Code of the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, together with the relevant Green Belt, design and heritage provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant policies of the emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan.
We respectfully request that planning permission is refused unless the applicant can demonstrate, through a properly quantified Green Belt and design assessment, that the cumulative development represents an acceptable enlargement of the original dwelling, preserves Green Belt openness and character, complies with the locally adopted design requirements and avoids harm to the significance and setting of the affected heritage assets.
PL/26/06637/TP 4 Glenfields, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LS
T1 Silver birch (Betula pendula) Section dismantle tree to near ground level as tree is dead, G1 (numerous stumps - Grind out the stump to a depth of approx. 200mm to remove stumps, T2 Thuja - Section dismantle and grind out stump to a depth of approx. 200mm as tree is showing minimal vitality. Removal to eliminate risk of future failures, G2 Privet x2 and tree leaning on fence - Fell and grind out stump to a depth of approx. 200mm as hedge that has become unmanaged, removal to make room for new hedge to be planted. T3 Oak - Reduce lowest lateral over client’s garden by removing approx 3m. Crown lift to ensure approx 3m ground clearance. Reason - to reduce encroachment in client’s garden. Cherry - Dismantle and grind out stump as tree is dead.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
PL/26/06925/TP 15 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4ER
T1 Catalpa - Crown reduction of 3.5m as touching house and may cause damage.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
PL/26/07056/FA Park Wood House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PE
Householder application for the construction of single storey rear extensions following partial demolition of existing extensions, garage conversion with first floor extension above, changes to roofs, fenestration and architectural detailing.
Parish Comments: Object.
Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to the application on grounds of architectural design and its relationship with the distinctive character of the existing dwelling. For clarity, the Parish Council's concern is not principally with the amount of additional accommodation proposed, nor does the Council contend that an extension of the general scale or footprint proposed would necessarily be unacceptable. The concern is with the architectural expression of that development and whether the proposed extensions and alterations respond appropriately and sympathetically to the established architectural identity of Park Wood House.
Park Wood House is a substantial traditional dwelling displaying readily identifiable Arts and Crafts-influenced characteristics, very few are left within Stoke Poges. The Parish Council uses that description to identify the architectural character of the building and does not suggest that the property is a designated heritage asset. Its character is expressed through the steeply pitched tiled roofs, prominent gables, substantial chimneys, dormers, vertically proportioned fenestration, dark joinery and detailing and, importantly, through the articulation of the elevations and roofscape. The existing house is not expressed as a single uniform volume; its apparent mass is broken into a series of differentiated but coherent architectural elements. This articulation, together with its roof forms, window proportions and detailing, gives the building a strong and recognisable architectural identity.
The Parish Council acknowledges that the application seeks to alter and extend the property and that new work does not have to reproduce the existing building literally. The Council does not object to contemporary architecture in principle, nor does it suggest that an extension to an Arts and Crafts-influenced dwelling must amount to pastiche. A contemporary addition can form a successful relationship with a traditional building where its proportions, composition, articulation, fenestration, roof form, materials and detailing establish a coherent and complementary relationship with the host building. The issue is therefore not whether the proposed work is "traditional" or "modern", but whether the architectural contrast has been successfully resolved.
In this instance, the Parish Council considers that it has not. The proposed rear treatment introduces a substantially different architectural language from that which characterises the existing house. In particular, the breadth and comparatively uniform treatment of the proposed elevation, together with its fenestration, detailing and composition, result in a much more consolidated architectural expression. In contrast with the highly articulated composition of the existing dwelling, the proposed rear elevation reads as a broad and comparatively monolithic element, with insufficient architectural articulation to establish a convincing relationship with the proportions, rhythm and architectural vocabulary of the host building. The word "monolithic" is used here descriptively rather than stylistically: the concern arises from the comparative breadth, continuity and uniformity of the proposed composition when read against the deliberately articulated character of the existing house.
The Parish Council considers that this distinction is important. The identified harm is capable of being addressed through architectural design, rather than necessarily by materially reducing the amount of accommodation proposed. A revised solution could potentially accommodate a similar quantum of development whilst achieving a substantially more sympathetic architectural relationship with Park Wood House through greater articulation of the elevation, reconsideration of fenestration and proportions, and a stronger response to the established roofscape, rhythm, detailing and architectural hierarchy of the original dwelling.
Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan – Policy SP6 and Design Codes
The made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the statutory Development Plan and must be given full weight in the determination of this application. Policy SP6 requires development proposals to have full regard to the Stoke Poges Design Code, having regard to the location, scale and nature of the proposal. The Design Code was specifically prepared to secure character led design which responds to local context and enhances the sense of place.
The Parish Council considers Design Codes LB03 and LB04 particularly relevant. LB03 concerns the preservation and promotion of local vernacular, while LB04 specifically addresses extensions, conversions and infill. The locally specific design framework therefore requires more than consideration of whether an extension can physically be accommodated within a plot. It requires consideration of how the architecture of new development responds to the character and identity of the building and its context. The Parish Council has consistently applied LB03 and LB04 to proposals where alterations risk producing an incongruous relationship with an existing traditional dwelling.
In applying those policies to Park Wood House, the Parish Council considers that compliance cannot be demonstrated simply through the use of materials which may occur on the existing dwelling or by incorporating individual traditional details. The architectural composition must be considered as a whole. In this case, the principal concern is that the proposed design does not sufficiently respond to the distinctive proportions, articulation, roofscape, fenestration and architectural rhythm of Park Wood House. Consequently, the additions would not read as a coherent architectural evolution of the existing dwelling but as a visually distinct intervention insufficiently informed by the character of its host.
Saved South Bucks Local Plan Policies EP3 and H11
This concern is reinforced by the saved policies of the South Bucks District Local Plan. Policy H11 requires alterations and extensions to harmonise with the existing dwelling in terms of scale, height, form and design. The Parish Council's objection is principally directed to the form and design components of that test. It is not necessary for the Parish Council to contend that the proposed amount of accommodation is excessive in order to identify conflict with H11: an extension may be capable of being accommodated in physical terms while nevertheless failing to harmonise architecturally with the dwelling to which it is attached.
Policy EP3 is also relevant insofar as it requires development to be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings through its design and external appearance. Read together, EP3 and H11 establish a clear policy expectation that alterations to an existing dwelling should form an appropriate architectural relationship with that building. The Parish Council considers that the present proposal falls short of that requirement.
Rear location of the proposed development
The Parish Council has expressly taken account of the fact that the principal intervention is at the rear of Park Wood House. That is relevant to the degree of impact upon the public street scene and the Council does not suggest otherwise. However, reduced visibility from Park Road does not remove the separate design question of whether an extension harmonises satisfactorily with its host building. Park Road House is clearly visible from Park Road.
This distinction is particularly important in the present case. The Parish Council is not relying primarily upon harm to the public street scene. Its concern is the architectural relationship between the proposed additions and Park Wood House itself. A rear extension remains an extension to a building possessing an established architectural character, and the requirement under H11 to harmonise with the existing dwelling, together with the locally specific requirements of SP6, LB03 and LB04, remains applicable irrespective of whether the altered elevation is the principal street facing elevation.
The rearward location should therefore be afforded appropriate weight, but it does not in itself demonstrate that the architectural treatment is acceptable. Indeed, the Design Code specifically addresses extensions and the relationship of new work with original buildings. The relevant question is whether the new architecture successfully integrates with, complements or otherwise establishes a coherent design relationship with the distinctive proportions and architectural identity of its host.
National Planning Policy Framework
The Parish Council has also considered the proposal against the current National Planning Policy Framework. National design policy places considerable importance upon context and upon the quality of the architectural response. The Government's current design policy approach expressly requires assessment of proposals against their context and relevant local design policies and design codes. The current DP3 approach builds upon the previous national tests for good design and places particular emphasis upon considering a scheme's context.
This is directly relevant to Park Wood House because there is a recently made and highly specific local Design Code against which the proposal can be assessed. National policy does not require architectural imitation, nor should it be interpreted as preventing contemporary design. Rather, it supports development which responds successfully to the history, character and features of its site and setting and establishes an appropriate sense of identity.
The Parish Council considers that the proposal does not presently demonstrate that quality of contextual response. The architectural character of the existing house provides a clear design cue, yet the proposed rear composition does not sufficiently engage with the building's established articulation, proportions, fenestration, roofscape and architectural rhythm. The concern is therefore consistent with national policy's emphasis upon context responsive, well-designed development, rather than representing a subjective preference for a particular architectural style.
Emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan – Regulation 19
The Parish Council has additionally had regard to the Regulation 19 Publication Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 as an emerging material consideration. The Parish Council recognises that the draft Plan has not been adopted and therefore does not form part of the statutory Development Plan. The Regulation 19 consultation represents the final statutory consultation before submission for independent examination, and Buckinghamshire Council currently intends to submit the Plan to the Planning Inspectorate by 31 December 2026. The emerging policies should therefore be treated according to their statutory status and the weight properly attributable to an emerging plan, rather than being presented as adopted policy.
Nevertheless, the direction of emerging Buckinghamshire design policy is material insofar as it reinforces the established national and local approach to context led design. The emerging Local Plan seeks high-quality development which responds positively to existing character and identity. That approach is consistent with the principles already contained in the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan and national design policy. The Regulation 19 Plan is particularly relevant insofar as its design approach recognises that good design is not simply a question of choosing between traditional and contemporary architecture; what matters is whether the architectural response is appropriately informed by its context.
Accordingly, the Parish Council does not rely upon the emerging Local Plan as the primary basis for its objection. The principal policy basis remains the adopted Development Plan, particularly SP6 and Design Codes LB03 and LB04 together with the applicable saved South Bucks policies. The emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan is relied upon as additional evidence that the character-led and context-responsive approach sought by those adopted policies remains consistent with the direction of current county wide planning policy. The Regulation 19 Plan is now at an advanced pre-submission stage, although the weight ultimately attributable to individual policies will also depend upon matters including unresolved representations and consistency with national policy.
Overall conclusion
The Parish Council's objection is therefore specific to design. It does not object in principle to the extension of Park Wood House; it does not contend that contemporary architecture is inherently inappropriate; and it does not presently rely upon an objection that the proposed amount of additional accommodation is intrinsically excessive.
The concern is instead that the architectural solution adopted for that development does not sufficiently respond to the distinctive character of the existing dwelling. Park Wood House derives much of its architectural identity from its articulated composition of pitched roofs, gables, dormers, chimneys, traditionally proportioned openings and differentiated architectural elements. Those characteristics establish a recognisable rhythm and hierarchy across the building.
In contrast, the proposed rear elevation adopts a broader, more uniform and comparatively monolithic architectural treatment. The relationship between old and new therefore appears insufficiently resolved. Rather than complementing the established architectural language of Park Wood House or providing a carefully considered contemporary contrast to it, the proposal would result in an uncomfortable architectural juxtaposition which weakens the coherence of the building as a whole.
The fact that much of the development would be positioned at the rear reduces its prominence within the public street scene, and the Parish Council has taken that into account. It does not, however, overcome the requirement for the proposed work to form a satisfactory architectural relationship with the host dwelling itself.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposal in its present architectural form fails to respond satisfactorily to the character and architectural identity of Park Wood House and does not demonstrate the character led approach required by the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan Design Code. The identified concerns are also consistent with the requirements of saved South Bucks policies, current national design policy and the direction of the Regulation 19 Buckinghamshire Local Plan.
For those reasons, Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to the application as presently designed and considers that a revised architectural solution should be sought which achieves a more coherent and sympathetic relationship with the distinctive character, proportions, articulation, roofscape and architectural vocabulary of the existing dwelling.
PL/26/07237/PNR The Fox and Pheasant, Gerrards Cross Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4EZ
Prior notification under Class M of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 - Change of use of first floor from public house/restaurant (sui generis) to dwelling (Use Class C3).
Parish Comments: Objection – proposed development does not fall within Class M
Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to this application on the basis that the proposed development does not appear to fall within the permitted development right relied upon by the applicant. The application seeks prior approval under Class M of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the change of use of the first-floor accommodation associated with the Fox and Pheasant public house to a dwellinghouse within Use Class C3.
The starting point must be the scope of the permitted development right itself.
Class M provides, so far as relevant:
(a) a change of use of a building from—
(i) a use falling within one of the following—
(aa) launderette;
(bb) betting office;
(cc) pay day loan shop;
(dd) hot food takeaway;
to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order.
The permitted development right is therefore confined to the particular existing uses identified in Class M. A public house is not one of those qualifying uses.
The Parish Council understands that the first-floor accommodation at the Fox and Pheasant has historically been occupied as accommodation for the manager of the public house in connection with the operation of that business. It has not historically operated as a separate, independently occupied C3 dwelling.
As the first-floor accommodation is ancillary to the public house, it forms part of the planning use of the public house rather than constituting an independent dwellinghouse. The proposal would therefore involve severing that accommodation from the public house and establishing a separate and independently occupiable C3 dwelling.
Class M does not grant permitted development rights for the conversion or severance of accommodation ancillary to a public house into an independent dwelling.
Furthermore, if the first floor is instead characterised, as the application description appears to suggest, as forming part of the sui generis public house/restaurant use, the same fundamental difficulty arises. A public house or sui generis public house use is not amongst the qualifying existing uses specified in Class M(a)(i).
The Government's Explanatory Memorandum to the 2021 amendments to the GPDO confirms the intended scope of the amended Class M right:
“The amended right provides for the change from a launderette, betting office, pay day loan shop or hot food takeaway to residential C3...”
There therefore appears to be no basis within Class M for a change from either:
(a) accommodation ancillary to a public house; or (b) a sui generis public house use,
to an independent C3 dwellinghouse.
The Parish Council considers this to be a threshold issue concerning whether the proposed development is capable of being permitted development under Class M, rather than simply a matter falling within the matters for prior approval.
Accordingly, the Parish Council requests that Buckinghamshire Council first satisfies itself as to the lawful existing use of the first-floor accommodation and whether that use falls within one of the qualifying uses expressly identified in Class M. On the information presently available, the Parish Council considers that it does not. The proposed development therefore does not appear to constitute permitted development under Class M, and the application for prior approval should consequently not be approved on that basis.
PL/26/07158/FA 3 Hazell Way, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4BN
Householder application for conversion of roof space into habitable room with roof lights.
Parish Comments: No Comment
PL/26/07178/TP Lashbrook, Lakeside Drive, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LX
Crown reduction in height by maximum of 2m and laterals by maximum 1.5m to a finished height of 17m and crown spread of 16m of Oak (T1) to keep the tree in scale with the surroundings.
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/26/03913/FA Woodside, Duffield Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4AH
Construction of porch, ground and first floor rear extension, internal alterations including removal of chimney, loft conversion and alteration of roof to include rooflights to the front, rear and side planes.
Parish Comments: No Comment
Hereby Permits.
PL/26/05134/TP 101 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LP
T1 Corsican Pine - Fell due to sensitive location and poor rooting environment, coupled with early signs of physiology dysfunction, T2 Yew - Fell as heavily in decline.
Parish Comments: No comment subject to the Tree Officer report.
Hereby Grants Consent
PL/26/05074/FA 10 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LD
Demolition of existing shed and construction of new single storey outbuilding in rear garden for gym and storage use.
Parish Comments: No Comment
Hereby Permits
PL/26/05098/FA Hope Cottage, Templewood Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks SL2 4AN
Part first floor part two storey side extension and demolition of single storey rear projection.
Parish Comments: No Comment.
Hereby Permits
PL/26/04256/FA Luttrells, Stoke Wood, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4BA
Erection of a two-storey side extension including internal alterations and addition of two bay windows on the principal elevation. Demolition of previous double garage extension and reconstruction of original single garage.
Parish Comments: We are concerned about pending and previous applications which will in total along with this application take them over the Green Belt 50% rules.
Hereby Permits
PL/26/05526/TP The Nonsense House, West End Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks SL2 4NE
11 x oak - fell due annual infestations.
Parish Comments: No objection subject to the Tree Officer report.
Hereby Refuse Consent
PL/26/03103/FA Netherwood, Grays Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4JG
Change of use of existing swimming pool building to provide 3no. self-contained residential units (Use Class C2) for assisted living within the existing House in Multiple Occupation and changes to fenestrations.
Parish Comments: - No Comment
Hereby Refuse Consent.
PL/26/03360/FA Molyns Cottage, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PE
Double storey side extension and first floor side extension of bathroom.
Parish Comments: - No Comment
Hereby Permits
ENFORCEMENTS
APPEALS
Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/X/24/3354729 The Park, Wexham Road, Buckinghamshire SL2 5QR • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Byron Thorne against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application ref PL/23/3164/EU, dated 27 September 2023, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2024. • The application was made under section 191(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. • The development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is the use of the site for hosting weddings, events and conferences, and the marquee buildings as operational development on the site. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the extent of the existing use and the existing operations which are found to be lawful.