Case Reference: 3296128

Costs Decision
Inquiry opened on 28 July 2022
Site visit made on 29 June on 28 July & 27 September
by Mrs J Wilson BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI DMS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2nd December 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/W/22/3296128
Land to the rear of 20 Wycombe Road, Holmer Green, High Wycombe,
HP15 6RY, 489803, 196518
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section
250(5).
• The application is made by Inland Homes Ltd for a partial or full award of costs
against Buckinghamshire Council
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against non-determination within
the prescribed period of an outline application (including details of access and
layout) for the erection of 101 dwellings with all other matters reserved.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
The application
2. The application was made for a full, or alternatively partial, award of costs,
made in writing and orally before me. The Council having received an advance
copy from the applicant opted to respond to the claim via its closing
submissions.
The case made by Inland Homes
3. The application is a claim for all costs arising from the appeal or in the
alternative costs arising from the date of the putative reasons for refusal (May
2022).
4. It is argued that the Councils reasons do not withstand scrutiny and amount to
an unreasonable exercise in the development management responsibility of the
Local Planning Authority. Moreover, that in the context of the non-
determination appeal the reasons for withholding planning permission have not
justified the delay in determining the application nor withholding planning
permission. It is further argued that by unreasonably deferring the application
by reference due to the alleged failure to provide or comply with a
development brief, which has not been persisted with as a policy failure and
which has since been recognised as a matter of limited weight, was never a
reasonable basis upon which to refuse planning permission.
5. The need to instruct an inquiry team, the preparation of evidence is argued to
be a wasted expense in the context of a decision which the applicant asserts
should reasonably have been to grant planning permission subject to a legal
agreement and appropriate conditions.
6. Key points for consideration are that the Council have failed to properly
consider the position in respect of the connections from the appeal site in the
context of land to the south which is undeveloped and has no existing network
to connect into and where no evidence has shown that the connections
provided by the appeal proposals cannot acceptably be made use of. Secondly
that the council have failed to appreciate the scope of reserved matters to
overcome the narrow scope of matters set against the scheme.
7. Finally, that the Council have failed to properly consider the planning balance,
compliance with local and national policy as a whole nor provide any specialist
urban design or landscape evidence to substantiate that the proposal is not
capable of being well designed when the advice of their own specialist officers
was entirely consistent with the evidence provided by relevant experts to the
Inquiry. A preference for one approach to providing a sense of separation is
considered to be insufficient to justify refusal having regard to a properly
conducted planning balance.
The response of the Council
8. The Council contend that as the proposal fails to comply with Policy HW8.
Whilst it is supportive of development on this allocated site in principle the
particular layout, which is not reserved for future consideration, does not
provide for the comprehensive development of the appeal site. As such the
consideration of access and layout involves approval of routes and open spaces
and at this stage has not been demonstrated to be consistent with the
proposals on the as yet undetermined proposals on the Bellway part of the
allocation.
9. The Council argue that the applicant could have chosen to make layout a
reserved matter however argues that its insistence on putting forward a
detailed layout for consideration is at odds with the development of land to the
South within HW8 and that this has necessitated the Inquiry. Moreover, in its
closings the Council highlighted that the appellant sought to rely on a proposed
flexible condition which it then did a U turn. The Council argued that it was
never reasonable for the appellant to deal with this matter by way of a
condition and that it was always unreasonable and imprecise, the Council
having pointed this out in its opening to the Inquiry. The appellant relied on a
proposed flexible condition to secure the links and during the course of the
inquiry altered this approach.
10. The Council initially recommended the appeal proposal for approval. The
Planning Officers’ report exercised a professional judgement based on the
evidence arising from consultation responses and the information contained in
the application. Members did not accept the officer recommendation initially
seeking to defer a decision until after the production of the development brief
and the subsequently resolving to oppose the proposal citing two putative
reasons for refusal.
Reasons
11. Following the lodging of the non-determination appeal the Council made clear
what its putative reasons for refusal were. Those reasons were essentially the
lack of comprehensive development and the failure to maintain the appropriate
sense of separation between Hazlemere and Holmer Green. These are the main
threads of the evidence provided by the Council and upon which I have made
my own assessment in the separate development decision notice.
12. Whilst the initial deferral of the appeal proposal solely on the basis that a
development brief should be prepared may have been unreasonable this did
not and does not obviate the conclusions of the Council that the proposal was
deficient against the Development Plan even though the officers of the Council
had recommended otherwise.
13. The Council was entitled to disagree with the officer recommendation and to
set out the reasons for that conclusion. It is neither unusual nor irregular for
elected members to overturn a recommendation before them, indeed this is
part of the nature of decision making particularly where members take a
different view provided that they articulate the reasons for that difference. It
was inevitable under those circumstances that policy issues would require
further scrutiny.
14. In any event it is clear to me that the necessary legal agreement was not in
place until long into the process of the inquiry and it was not sufficiently
advanced that the Council could have granted permission had the elected
members agreed with the officer recommendation. As such there does not
appear to have been an unnecessary delay. The Council would not have been in
a position to conclude proceedings and grant consent in either February or May
given that the agreement was a matter which was outstanding.
15. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes it clear that an award of costs
may be justified where development is prevented or delayed which clearly
should have been permitted having regard to the development plan. The PPG
also makes clear that for costs to be awarded unreasonable behaviour must
have caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted
expense during the appeal process. I have found the proposal deficient in
relation to the requirements of the development plan and that planning
permission should be refused.
16. The PPG makes it clear that any application for costs needs to clearly
demonstrate the basis for alleged unreasonable behaviour and how this
resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. For the
reasons given above I have not found that unreasonable behaviour occurred,
and it is not therefore necessary for me to consider the matter of unnecessary
or wasted expense in the appeal process.
17. For the reasons set out it has not been demonstrated that the Council has
behaved unreasonably in the appeal process as set out in the PPG. It cannot
therefore follow that the applicant has incurred unnecessary or unreasonable
expense in pursuing the appeal. The application for an award of costs is
therefore not justified.
Mrs J Wilson
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 28 July 2022
Site visits made on 28 July & 27 September
by Mrs J Wilson BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI DMS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2nd December 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/W/22/3296128
Land to the rear of 20 Wycombe Road, Holmer Green, High Wycombe,
HP15 6RY, 489803, 196518
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against Buckinghamshire Council - West Area
(Wycombe).
• The application Ref 18/07194/OUT, is dated 31 August 2018.
• The development proposed is Outline application (including details of access and layout)
for the erection of 101 dwellings with all other matters reserved.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Inland Homes Ltd against
Buckinghamshire Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The Inquiry was scheduled to open on 26 July as a face to face event however
due to the COVID status of a key participant was switched to be conducted
virtually. Prior to the start date, Rule 6 parties strongly objected to a virtual
event. Following consideration of those objections the opening was delayed in
order that the Inquiry could be conducted face to face opening on 28 July
2022. On the first day openings and evidence from two of the four Rule 6
parties was given however later that day it became apparent that members of
the public who, due to the content of correspondence they had received from
the Council had a legitimate expectation to join and participate in the event
virtually. Site notices had also made it plain that the event would be available
virtually. As that option was not available to them the Council explored whether
it could stream the remainder of the event online but was unable to do so for
capacity reasons.
4. In the interests of fairness, and given the notifications that had been sent, the
Inquiry was adjourned. It was subsequently resumed as a hybrid event on 26
September with participation both face to face and remotely via Teams. In total
the Inquiry sat for a total of seven days on 28 and 29 July and between 26 to
30 September 2022.
5. The Appeal Site straddles the boundary of two former District Councils, Chiltern
and Wycombe. The majority of the appeal site is located within Hazlemere
Parish which lies within the former Wycombe District Council area. The access
road, and the existing dwelling at 20 Wycombe Road are located within Holmer
Green, within the former Chiltern District Council area. Consequently, the
Appeal Site also encompasses land within two Parish Council areas, Hazlemere
within the former Wycombe District Council area, and Little Missenden, within
the former Chiltern District Council area. Holmer Green, the closest settlement
to the proposed development, is within Little Missenden Parish Council.
6. Planning applications were originally made to Wycombe District Council and
Chiltern Council in 2018 as the appeal site area includes land in both districts.
The Buckinghamshire authorities of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South
Buckinghamshire, and Wycombe, along with Buckinghamshire County Council,
became a Unitary Authority known as Buckinghamshire Council (The Council) in
April 2020 and the application made to Chiltern1 was subsequently withdrawn
on 5th August 2020.
7. The original planning application was made in outline for 103 dwellings with
access, layout and scale to be determined. The proposal was amended in June
2020, May 2021, August 2021 and January 2022. The amendments in May
2021 resulted in scale being removed from consideration. In January 2022 the
scheme was further amended to “Outline application (including details of access
& layout) for the erection of 101 dwellings with all other matters reserved”
resulting in the loss of 2 units from the layout. As such the revised description
is reflected in my banner heading above. The amendments were referred to in
the officer report following consultation by the Council and I am satisfied that
there would not be any prejudice to participants in considering the
development on the basis of the revised description.
8. The application is in outline with all matters save for access and layout
reserved for subsequent approval. Drawings, 18083-S101B (Location Plan);
18083-C201B & 18083-P202M (Site Layouts); and 141278/A/07 (Site Access
Alignment) are for consideration with all other plans taken for illustrative
purposes only.
9. As the appeal is against non-determination there is no decision notice. Initially
the appeal scheme was deferred by the Councils Strategic Sites Committee2 to
be considered further once a development brief had been produced. Following
the lodging of the appeal the Council considered the scheme again resolving,
against their officer recommendation, to refuse permission and offering
putative reasons for refusal. Two reasons were identified3. The first reason
related to lack of comprehensive development, lack of an appropriate sense of
separation between Hazlemere and Holmer Green, and failure to meet key
design principles required to achieve high quality sustainable development
contrary to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework
(The Framework)4.
10. The second putative reason for refusal focused on the absence of an obligation
under Section 106 of the Planning Act (s106) to secure contributions or direct
1 PL/18/3121/OA
2 On 24 February 2022
3 Strategic Sites Committee 12 May 2022
4 Page 4 and 5 of CD77
provision on a range of matters including affordable housing, the definition of
local criterion related to affordable housing, the level of contributions for
highways, education, public open space including equipped play, sustainable
urban drainage provision, connectivity between the appeal site and the
remainder of the HW8 allocation (to the south), biodiversity including offsetting
contributions and detailed ecological management plan, the provision of a
management company and the provision of custom and self-build housing
within the site.
11. The legal agreement covers the matters referred to above and a signed version
of the agreement was received after the Inquiry closed within the timeframe
specified. I am satisfied that the provisions of the obligations would be
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, that they
directly relate to the development, and fairly and reasonably relate in scale and
kind to the development, thereby meeting the relevant tests in the Framework5
and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations6. I have taken the planning
obligation into account in reaching my decision.
12. Four groups were afforded Rule 6 status at the Inquiry7. Little Missenden Parish
Council (LMPC), Holmer Green Village Society (HGVS), Hazlemere Parish
Council (HPC) and Holmer Green and Hazlemere Neighbourhood Development
Focus Group (HG&HDFG) gave evidence opposing the appeal. These
representations included matters which were not contested by the Council or
the highway authority relating to the capacity and safety of the access and the
impact of the development on existing trees, matters to which I will return.
13. I held a Case Management Conference (CMC) online on 16 June 2022 which
was attended by the main parties and representatives of the four Rule 6
parties. At the CMC the following matters were covered: the main issues were
identified, how the evidence would be dealt with at the Inquiry; the submission
of statements of common ground; the listing of core documents; the timetable
for submission of documents along with other procedural matters. A second
CMC was held on 11 August where the focus was the technical arrangements
for the delivery of a hybrid Inquiry.
14. The status of the Hazlemere Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) changed during the
Inquiry as it was published for Regulation 16 consultation8. Evidence was given
that the HNP seeks to deliver sustainable development by protecting and
improving green infrastructure, delivering zero carbon buildings, and promoting
sustainable transport, in respect of the appeal site it seeks to articulate a
greater level of detail in relation to the site and on specific subject matters.
Local Councillors in their representations advised that the emerging plan should
be given particular attention in respect of climate change. Whilst the objectives
of the plan are acknowledged, as an emerging plan at an early stage of
preparation the HNP does not yet form part of the development plan and in
accordance with paragraph 48 of the Framework it, can be afforded only limited
weight in decision making.
15. A Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) was agreed between the appellants
and the Council before the Inquiry opened in July. An addendum to that SOCG
5 Paragraph 57
6 Regulation 122
7 Accorded Rule 6 (6) party status under the Inquiry Procedure Rules.
8 28 September 2022
was also agreed in August 2022 updating the Inquiry on the Hazlemere
Neighbourhood Plan and the progress of the HW8 Development Brief.
16. The appeal site was previously designated as Green Belt. However, upon
adoption of the 2019 Wycombe District Local Plan (Local Plan) the appeal site
and adjacent land was identified for development as a housing site. The site is
no longer subject to any Green Belt9 designation and as such Green Belt issues
are not for consideration in this appeal.
17. I undertook an accompanied site visit during the initial part of the Inquiry in
July and again on 27 September, viewing the site and surrounding area to an
itinerary agreed between the main and all Rule 6 parties. I observed, as was
requested by Rule 6 parties the extent of traffic passing the site at school
closing times. I also visited the general area prior to the Inquiry opening to
look at the surroundings from the points indicated by the Council.
Main Issues
18. Having regard to these matters and taking into account the procedural matters
outlined above the main issues are:-
a) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
in the context of the requirements of Policy HW8 of the Local Plan part 1 a)
(achieving a sense of separation between Hazlemere and Holmer Green).
b) Whether the appeal scheme achieves comprehensive development within
Wycombe district as set out in part 1c) of Policy HW8.
c) The status of the development brief covering the land subject to Policy HW8.
Reasons
Policy background
19. The appeal site forms the northern part of a housing site allocated by Policy
HW8 of the Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 (Local Plan). Consequently, the
site is accepted as a sustainable location suitable for the quantum of housing
development proposed, subject to meeting the requirements of the policy
criteria. It was acknowledged by the Council and the appellants that the
development of this appeal site would unlock the wider delivery of the HW8
allocation. Notwithstanding this, compliance with two aspects of Policy HW8 are
at issue. Firstly, the requirement to maintain a sense of separation between the
settlements of Hazlemere and Holmer Green10, and secondly the requirement
to provide a comprehensive development of the site within the Wycombe
district11. I shall deal with these two matters separately.
20. Policy HW8 requires that development maintains a sense of separation between
Hazlemere and Holmer Green. The parish boundaries of which run along the
northern boundary of the appeal site (save for the proposed access). The
layout set out in Fig 14 of the Local Plan12 which accompanies policy HW8,
whilst marked indicative, makes clear where existing trees and woodland are
located. These physical features form the northern boundary of the appeal site
9 Wycombe District Council Local Plan, Inspectors Report 10 July 2019 para 137
10 (Criterion a) of Policy HW8
11 (Criterion c) of Policy HW8
12 Page 108 of the Wycombe District Council Local Plan
and separate existing residential development in Holmer Green from the open
part of the appeal scheme13.
21. The western and central portions of the appeal site would be developed for
housing with the southern corner section left largely undeveloped, other than
for the provision of a dry balancing pond to accommodate periods of high
rainfall in order to relieve surface water issues. The Council does not object to
the principle of residential development on this site. Objections were expressed
by some representors which I deal with below.
Character and appearance
22. The layout of the development would be fixed by the submitted plans and
whilst landscaping is a reserved matter the impact of the road layout and the
positioning of buildings enables the effect on the character and appearance to
be clearly understood in the context of the requirement to maintain a sense of
separation between the settlements of Hazlemere and Holmer Green. The
Inquiry heard that the two parishes had long since merged given that
development is contiguous at Watchet Lane and Sawpit Hill which was evident
from an aerial photograph14. However, that element of coalescence predates
the requirements of the Local Plan which requires the sense of separation to be
maintained between the two settlements.
23. There were differing interpretations of the ‘sense of separation’ at the Inquiry
with the appellants arguing that the Council in its officer report had concluded
that the development ‘achieves a degree of physical separation between the
two parcels of development by providing a distinct and meaningful area of open
space to the south of the site which also provides green infrastructure and
required on-site strategic open space15. However, this reference relates to the
separation of parts of the new development at the southern edge of the appeal
site and not on the boundary between the two parishes. Moreover, it does not
address the requirement of criterion 1 a) of HW8 nor does it recognise the
issue of the maintenance of existing vegetation highlighted in the plans
accompanying Policy HW8.
24. Local residents highlighted the need for meaningful separation between
Hazlemere and Holmer Green and drew attention to the deliberate removal of
tree cover within the remnant orchard. Rule 6 parties generally accepted that
development would proceed on the site in some form however emphasised that
the principles of the Local Plan Policy should be implemented. The appellants
explained that the trees which had been removed were in poor condition.
Furthermore, the retention of the remnant orchard trees is not specifically
referred to in the wording of Policy HW8. The explanatory text in the Local Plan
supports the premise that green infrastructure can provide the sense of
separation between the two communities16. Importantly though, it also refers
to the site benefiting from important natural features including an orchard and
woodland both of which are on the northern boundary of the site. The retention
of the remnant orchard would not be addressed by the submitted layout which
would undermine the objective of maintaining a sense of separation as it would
result in built development on the northern boundary. It is also relevant that a
13 Save for the access road
14 At appendix D to Miss Luis POE
15 In their committee report to the Strategic Sites Committee on 24 February 2022
16 Paragraph 5.1.72 Wycombe District Local Plan
Tree Preservation Order17 relating to six remaining trees within the remnant
orchard is now in place even though this was imposed in response to the tree
felling which had taken place.
25. The appellants suggested that the sense of separation was a nebulous
criterion18 and that the Council’s evidence tended towards a preference rather
than a strong view. Landscape evidence focused on the relationship of the site
to the existing settlement though in cross examination the appellants
landscape witness conceded that the appeal site did have a role in providing a
sense of separation between the two settlements.
26. The central open space to the south of the appeal site would undeniably
provide a sense of separation between new development on the two parts of
HW819. However, it would not achieve the clear requirement for separation
between the two parishes in the context of the appeal site. In my judgement
and in the straightforward application of the meaning of part 1 a) of Policy
HW8, there is a clear requirement for separation on the northern boundary,
this is the only part of the appeal site where the two parish boundaries are
contiguous20. The term ‘maintain’ in respect of the existing sense of separation,
in my view, requires a tangible, recognisable element of separation to be
achieved. This requirement is represented in the indicative layout in Fig 14 of
the Plan where existing trees and woodland on the northern boundary are
shown as retained with housing development indicated further south. This is
further supported in Fig 14 accompanying Policy HW8 and although not part of
the policy, in the context of the existing trees and woodland it shows the
development within the context of existing natural features on the appeal site,
factors not recognised by the appeal layout.
27. The existing woodland and the remnant orchard are not, and would not, be
visible in the wider landscape however they remain highly visible from
residential properties to the north and west of the site and these features make
a significant contribution to the separation of Hazlemere from Holmer Green.
The appeal layout does not provide for the retention of existing vegetation on
the northern boundary. This would not allow for the retention of the trees, now
protected by a preservation order, nor would it make provision for the remnant
orchard to be retained, as envisaged by plan which supports Policy HW8 in the
development plan. Nor would it allow the remnant orchard to be restored
following the loss of a significant area of tree cover. The proposed layout would
also be in conflict with objectives contained in Policies CP9, CP10 and DM34 of
the Local Plan which together seek to conserve the natural environment and
implement measures for enhancement and to improve and use existing green
infrastructure. There would be some conflict with Policy DM35, which requires
development to improve the character of the area and to show a holistic
understanding of the natural context as well as taking a comprehensive
approach to site layout and design. Similarly, there would be some conflict with
the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (for town centres and managing
development) (2013) (Site Allocations Plan) Policy DM11 which requires
improvement to the green infrastructure network; and to Policy DM14 which
requires existing resources to be conserved and enhanced.
17 served on 27 June 2022
18 Appellants Closing submission para 29 (Mr Grant)
19 Appellants Closing submission paras 36.1 to 36.3
20 As shown in the aerial photograph in Appendix D to Mis Luis POE
28. Landscaping is a reserved matter the detail of which is not before me. Even so
the new orchard area to the western part of the site adjacent to No 1 Kestrel
Drive, which is immediately on the western boundary of the development site,
would not provide adequate mitigation for the loss of the remnant orchard
either in terms of its size nor location. Neither would it achieve any meaningful
sense of separation between the two settlements.
29. Taking all these factors into account and for the reasons outlined the proposed
layout would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the
area in conflict with part 1 a) of Policy HW8 of the Local Plan as it would fail to
maintain any sense of separation between Hazlemere and Holmer Green.
Comprehensive development
30. The appeal site forms around one third of the HW8 Local Plan allocation.
Paragraph 1 c) of that policy requires that schemes ‘provide a comprehensive
development of the site with Wycombe District’. The land of the HW8 allocation
is held by a small number of owners, the appeal site and the bulk of the
remainder being in the ownership of a separate developer Bellway. Their land is
currently subject to a planning application for which amendments are currently
being sought.
31. The importance of co-ordinated or comprehensive development stems from the
need to ensure that Holmer Green facilities are accessible on foot from the
southern part of the allocation through this appeal site. The appeal site also
needs to provide for adequate pedestrian and vehicular connections for
emergency vehicles. This underpins the need to ensure that such connections
are fully considered and the relationship between the two is of relevance.
32. It was agreed between the main parties that connections to the remainder of
HW8 are essential to ensure sustainable development. The appeal layout
indicates three pedestrian linkages, one of which would also provide access for
emergency vehicles between the appeal site and the remainder of the HW8
allocation. Nevertheless, as those positions do not match in with the same
points on the submitted scheme for land to the south21 albeit that scheme is, as
yet, undetermined, this lack of synergy undermines the comprehensive
development of the overall allocation required by Policy HW8.
33. Written communication from Bellway22 confirmed that the appeal layout would
not prejudice their own proposals and a revised layout for the Bellway scheme
was submitted in evidence at the Inquiry23. That layout showed connections to
two of the three points indicated in the appeal scheme. However, the Bellway
layout has not been accepted as an amendment and it is not certain if it will be.
To this extent comprehensive development of the overall HW8 allocation is not
secured as the two layouts do not fully align. In respect of the appeal scheme
one footpath would result in a dead end were the latest Bellway plan to
proceed.
34. I note that the appellants position that the provision of three connections is
generous and far from hindering comprehensive development, would provide
safe convenient and legible connections24. However, as connections are
21 As shown at appendix 8 to Mr Bell POE
22 Appendix 6 to Oliver Bell POE – letter dated 23 June 2022
23 INQDoc16
24 Appellants Closing submission para 24
required through the appeal site for future occupiers of the development on the
southern part of the site to access facilities in Holmer Green, it is necessary to
ensure that effective connections are secured between these two sites.
Moreover, as the layout of the scheme would be fixed there would be very
limited scope to make changes to flex the scheme to fit in with an as yet
unknown scheme on the remainder of HW8.
35. The Planning Practice Guidance25 and the Development Management Procedure
Order26, indicate that the consideration of any access includes accessibility to
land within the site regarding circulation routes both within and beyond the site
boundaries. In this context and considering that the appeal site is part of a
wider allocation there is a legitimate expectation that the Council should seek
to ensure that the development will function effectively as part of the whole
HW8 allocation. I do not accept the appellants view that, as there is no physical
existing network for the appeal proposal to connect into, it would be perverse
to consider connections to the remainder of the HW8 allocation.
36. It is acknowledged that the HW8 policy does not require a single planning
application and that in cross examination the Council’s witness conceded that
her evidence did not explicitly show how the appeal layout would compromise
comprehensive development. Notwithstanding this the layout of development
to the south is by no means certain and whilst the opinion of Bellway is that
their land would not be prejudiced, this was not evidenced or demonstrated by
way of any agreed plan or undertaking. Moreover, the Council confirmed that it
was not able to clarify whether the revised Bellway layout presented to the
Inquiry would be accepted as a revision to the current planning application
given that the extent of change may lead to the requirement for a fresh
application and effective connections remain uncertain.
37. The Inquiry also heard evidence that the lack of a comprehensive approach
meant opportunities have not been taken to co-ordinate the provision of open
space. This lack of a co-ordinated approach to the provision of open space and
recreation facilities means some provisions would be duplicated rather than co-
located on one scheme. In turn this would reduce the flexibility in the use of
open space on the appeal site which is already subject to competing
requirements for use as sustainable urban drainage. These factors would not
secure comprehensive development.
38. While co-ordination need not be hugely complicated it would involve a greater
degree of certainty as to the connection routes and the use of the central open
space. The amended layouts referred to and the statements that the appeal
scheme would not prejudice delivery are insufficient to secure the level of
confidence needed that comprehensive delivery across HW8 can be achieved.
39. Put simply, on the evidence before me the arrangements would not secure a
co-ordinated approach which is envisaged by the comprehensive development
of the site as required by part 1 c) of Policy HW8 which relates to a much larger
land area than this appeal site. It cannot be assumed that the selected points
intended to provide connections will be utilised by the adjoining site and no
certainty that those connections would be effective. There is no substantive
evidence that effective connections can be secured to the remainder of HW8.
25 Reference ID: 14-006-20140306 referred to in Opening and Closings by the Council INQDoc 2 and 26
26 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 SI 2015 No 595
As such I regard there to be a clear and necessary purpose for the
comprehensive development of the HW8 site.
40. Even though the submitted 106 agreement seeks to make provision for
connectivity and if necessary, the provision of step in rights, for the reasons
outlined above I conclude that there is no certainty that the comprehensive
development of the overall allocation required by part 1 c) of Policy HW8 would
be secured by this appeal scheme. As such Policy HW8 part 1 c) of the Local
Plan would be undermined resulting in conflict with the development plan which
requires there to be comprehensive development of the HW8 land within the
Wycombe District which in practical terms means the whole of the allocation.
41. In reaching my conclusion on comprehensive development I have had regard to
the conclusions reached in a recent appeal decision relating to another part of
the allocation fronting Amersham Road27 where the Inspector concluded that
the delivery of the HW8 allocation would not be prejudiced by the proposal for
eight houses. Nonetheless the considerations in that appeal are not the same
as in this scheme in the context of the wider proposals for the bulk of HW8. In
any event that decision was dismissed for other reasons and it does not alter
my findings in relation to the main issue.
Development Brief
42. The appellants statement of case correctly stated that Policy HW8 does not
‘require’ the production of a Development Brief for the HW8 allocation.
Supporting text in the Local Plan28 indicates that “A comprehensive approach to
the development of the land in Wycombe District is essential for good planning
on this site. Preparation of a development brief for the site will be essential to
coordinate the detailed planning of the site and this should be used to inform
any planning application submitted for the future development of the site”.
Even so, the parties agreed that there was no policy requirement for a
development brief.
43. The recent completion of the brief has somewhat superseded the initial position
of the Council who argued that the brief was needed to set the context for
development and would be essential in co-ordinating the detailed planning of
the site. The appeal proposal was formulated long before that detail so whilst it
will be of help to the formulation of future development it is the detailed
wording of Policy HW8 to which I must refer in determining the appeal
proposal.
44. It is self-evident that the appeal scheme was not, and could not have been,
informed by the development brief given the timeframes involved. It is a
matter of fact that the Council deferred its initial decision on the appeal
proposal for a brief to be prepared and the Council progressed that
development brief in parallel to the appeal and published its final version
immediately prior to the resumption of the Inquiry in September 2022.
45. That brief is now adopted and the main parties confirmed in their addendum to
the SOCG that the development brief is a material consideration29, this fact is
not in dispute.
27 APP/K0425/W/21/3272284
28 Paragraph 5.1.67 page 109 Wycombe Local Plan
29 Inquiry Document 11
46. Nonetheless in the context of this appeal the relevance of the brief is limited as
chronologically it could not have set the framework for the formulation of the
proposal I have before me. Though it will no doubt have relevance for future
submissions. Whilst I must have regard to the content of the brief as the
adopted approach of the Council which gives a greater level of detail in
interpreting Policy HW8 for the formulation of proposals it cannot overlay
additional requirements to Policy HW8 and I have considered the appeal
against the content of that Policy and relevant related policies which refer to
the treatment of existing natural features. In this regard whilst the status of
the Development Brief is now adopted, its content has not been determinative
to my findings in relation to this appeal.
Other Matters
47. There is significant feeling in the local community that the vehicular access to
the appeal site from Holmer Green should not be the de facto solution for
access to the housing allocation. My attention was drawn to a planning decision
in January 198830 where development at Tralee farm was refused on the basis
of increased traffic hazard and highway danger in the locality generally and on
the basis of loss of amenity to the occupiers of houses on Deanway. That
appeal scheme sought to extend an existing cul de sac of six houses which is a
substantially different proposal than that before me and as such it does not set
a precedent which I must follow.
48. Evidence was given by Rule 6 parties (LMPC, HGVS, HPC and HG&HDFG) that
the access onto Wycombe Road was unacceptable, that its proximity to the
Wycombe Road/Sawpit Hill junction caused traffic to back up past the site
particularly at the beginning and end of a school day. Although the Wycombe
Road access would be the only point of access/egress for the appeal site that
point of access is shown on the indicative plan supporting the HW8 allocation.
Whilst recognising the concerns expressed by the Rule 6 parties about traffic
being concentrated on a single access to Wycombe Road, I am satisfied that
the appellants highway assessment in terms of its methodology, assessment,
and forecasting indicates that the formation of the access subject to the
imposition of planning conditions and the completed section 106 agreement,
would not compromise highway safety. Moreover, the Highway Authority raised
no objection to the appeal scheme and I have no substantive evidence before
me which would lead me to a different conclusion.
49. Rule 6 parties focused on the issue of informal surveillance along the first part
of the proposed access between Wycombe Road and the main part of the site.
This was based on the fact that the first part of the access road would not be
overlooked by properties with habitable rooms. Furthermore, that surveillance
from the first floor windows of properties on the adjacent cul-de-sac at
Deanway would be unlikely to provide any meaningful natural surveillance of
the proposed access road. The access into the main development would have a
footway on only one side and would not be directly overlooked by existing or
proposed dwellings. Even so it serves as the only vehicular access to the
development and would have a level of traffic movements and activity
associated with 101 dwellings which would limit deficiencies in informal
surveillance from occupied properties. The access was identified in the
Development Plan as serving the site and the issue of surveillance along what
30 Application No 87/3297/CH made to Chiltern District Council – refused 21 1 88
would be the principal access has not been subject to any objection from the
Police who identified concerns associated with the rear pedestrian
accesses/passageways within the main part of the development. This issue is
not therefore a matter which would justify resisting the use of the access from
the Wycombe Road either in principle or in respect of the proposed layout.
50. Evidence was given on urban design matters however related to the general
layout of the site, its points of connectivity and the focal points of the scheme
with regard to site layout. As appearance is a reserved matter the visual
appearance of the buildings is not before me even though illustrative plans
gave some information as to potential street scenes. This matter has not been
determinative to the outcome of the appeal.
51. Representations have been made regarding a negative effect on existing
residential properties in terms of living conditions, especially those bordering
the western boundary of the site which is identified in the Development Plan as
a sensitive existing residential boundary. Reference was also made to an
easement along that same boundary which, it was argued, would prevent the
planting proposals shown on the layout plan from being implemented due to
the need to protect the route of the power lines. The appellants indicated that
the power lines would be undergrounded along the internal access roads and
that this would not limit the proposed planting along that boundary.
52. Whilst the outlook for residents of residential properties along Kestrel Drive and
Inkerman Drive and would certainly change, the Council did not raise objection
to the proposed facing distances between existing and proposed properties.
The provision of boundary treatments and planting would be matters to be
resolved through a reserved matters submission along with the detailed
placement of window openings which could be dealt with through conditions in
the event that permission was to be granted. Even though the western
boundary of the site is acknowledged in the Local Plan to be a sensitive
boundary, I see no reason, on the basis of the evidence before me to take a
different view to the Council on this matter.
53. Local concerns regarding difficulties with water pressure and the lack of
capacity for foul water drainage systems to accommodate additional housing
have been raised. These are matters which any developer would need to
resolve though new mains connections and the appellants and the Council have
addressed this matter through the drafting of planning conditions.
54. Representations have been made about facilities in the locality with particular
reference to the increased pressure that additional residential development
would place on medical services, as there is no local doctors surgery and there
is known to be limited capacity in local schools. The Section 106 agreement
includes contributions towards education the level of which has been agreed
with the Council. In so far as contributions toward medical services are
concerned the Council outlined in their committee report that the
Buckinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Group (BCCG) had not sufficiently
evidenced local need such as would have justified a contribution via the Section
106 legal agreement. Even so the development would be liable for
contributions under the Community Infrastructure Levy and the BCCG would be
entitled to bid for CIL funding for the provision of primary healthcare
infrastructure.
55. Representations were made in respect of a woodland/orchard area beyond the
north east of the appeal site which was omitted from the HW8 allocation in the
Local Plan. The landowners for that site argue that the omission of that land
from the HW8 allocation is inappropriate as to exclude it would mean that the
wider HW8 development would not be brought forward in a properly planned
and comprehensive manner, moreover it would result in a land locked parcel of
land. The land referred to is beyond the appeal site, neither is it within the
defined boundary of policy HW8 as indicated in the adopted plan. As such it is
not within the remit of this appeal. Decisions about its future being a matter for
the Council in the first instance.
Benefits
56. A range of benefits have been outlined and assessed by the appellants and the
Council. It was agreed that the provision of affordable and self-build housing
would be at a level which would be policy compliant and whilst it would deliver
housing to meet a specific local need it would not exceed the level required by
the development plan. Consequently, whilst in principle it is reasonable to give
substantial weight to such provision it would not ‘justify a breach of policy
requirements where a policy compliant scheme would also deliver the same
benefits31. This limits the weight that can be afforded to these benefits which,
as policy compliant provisions, I afford them neutral weight.
57. Biodiversity net gain would be a benefit and this is not disputed. However
measurable net gains in biodiversity are also a requirement of the development
plan through Policy DM34 and therefore the benefit carries moderate weight in
favour of the proposal.
58. The provision of market housing would be a benefit as would the economic
activity associated with the construction of the houses which would bring
income into the local area. There is no dispute that the Council can
demonstrate in excess of a five year supply of housing and in this context the
benefits of market housing and the economic benefits during construction and
into the local economy on an allocated site would not generate any more that
moderate weight in favour of the proposal.
Conclusion
59. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
the appeal must be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development which would
conflict with and undermine the strategy of an adopted development plan and
the Framework when taken as a whole would, in planning terms, be harmful.
60. Whilst I have found intrinsic conflicts with Policy HW8 and related conflicts with
other polices in the plan relating to existing natural features, from the evidence
before me I have not found conflict with Local Plan Policy CP7, which requires
infrastructure to support growth; with Policy DM33 relating to managing carbon
emissions (transport and energy generation); with Policy DM39 in respect of
managing flood risk; or with Policy DM16 of the Site Allocations Plan which sets
the open space requirements for new developments.
61. Whilst there would be benefits arising from the development which weigh in
favour of the scheme these would not, either individually or collectively,
31 Council Closing submissions Mr G Williams
warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan when
taken as a whole. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and planning
permission is refused.
Mrs J Wilson
INSPECTOR
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Mr P Tucker KC of Kings Chambers (28 and 29 July)
Mr Gary Grant of Counsel, Kings Chambers (28 to 30 July). He called:
Mr Will Gardner BSc (Hons), MSc, CMLI of EDP-UK as Landscape witness
Mr Colin Pullan BA(Hons) DipUD of Lambert Smith Hampton as Design witness
Mr Oliver Bell BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI of Nexus Planning as Planning witness
Mr Ian Dix BSc (Hons) MSc CMILT MCIHT of Vectos as Highway witness
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Guy Williams, of Counsel, Landmark Chambers – He called
Ms Antonia Lui BSc MSc MRTPI of Buckinghamshire Council as Planning witness
Rule 6 Parties
i. Little Missenden Parish Council - represented by Mr Alex Breed
ii. Holmer Green Village Society – represented by Simon Jones and David
Russell and Mr Robert Treasure
iii. Hazlemere Parish Council represented by Paul Fleming
iv. Holmer Green and Hazlemere Neighbourhood Development Focus Group
– represented by Susan Jamson
Representors
Councillor Oliver – Hazlemere Ward
Councillor Gemmell – Hazlemere Ward
Mr Alex Eden
Mrs Mary Kitching (statement read out on her behalf)
ANNEX B: Inquiry Documents
A following is a list of documents submitted during the Inquiry.
INQDoc1 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellants 28/7
INQDoc2 Opening submissions on behalf of the Local Planning Authority 28/7
INQDoc3 Opening submissions Little Missenden Parish Council – Mr Alex Breed
28/7
INQDoc4 Opening submissions Holmer Green Village Society – Mr Simon Jones
28/7
INQDoc5 Opening submissions Hazlemere Parish Council – Mr Paul Fleming
28/7
INQDoc6 Opening submissions Holmer Green and Hazlemere Neighbourhood
Development Focus Group – Mrs Susan Jamson 28/7
INQDoc7 Combined Notes of Evidence given by Mr Breed and Mr Jones 01/09
INQDoc8 CIL compliance Statement 22/9
INQDoc9 Letter from Sarah Green MP dated 23/9
INQDoc10 Consultation distribution Lists from Buckinghamshire Council 23/9
INQDoc11 Holmer Green - Addendum Statement of Common Ground (including
copy of appeal decision APP/K0425/W/21/3272284) received 23/9
INQDoc12 Map indicating Power line easement along the western Boundary of
the appeal site – received from Holmer Green and Hazlemere
Neighbourhood Development Focus Group -23/9
INQDoc13 Hazlemere Neighbourhood Plan Submission Version 26/9
INQDoc14 Buckinghamshire Council Costs response from Mr G Williams 26/9
INQDoc15 Statement by Mr R Treasure and accompanying documents 23/9
supporting Holmer Green Village Society (Rule 6 Party)
• Draft local Plan consultation responses August 2016
• Little Missenden Parish Council letter objecting to the scheme
dated 19 September 2018
• Statement of Consultation on Wycombe District Local Plan March
2018
• Statement of Consultation – Appendix 1 – Bodies and individuals
who were invited to make representations under Regulation 18
• Statement of Consultation – Appendix 2 - List of events outside
formal consultation
• Statement of Consultation on the Wycombe Local Plan April 2013 –
Appendix 3 - Summary report
• Statement of Consultation Appendix 4 – Community Conversations
report – August 2013
• Statement of Consultation Appendix 5 – Options consultation
events feedback July 2014
• Statement of Consultation Appendix 6 – Options consultation
Feedback report October 2014
• Statement of Consultation Appendix 7 – Feedback report
Development Management
INQDoc16 Bellway Presentation Planning layout 022103-BEL Rev B received on
28/9
INQDoc17 Revised schedule of conditions - 29/9
INQDoc18 Updated legal agreement revised drafts 26/9 and 28/9/22
INQDoc19 Revised itinerary for site visit
INQDoc20 Representation by Mrs Mary Kitching (read to the Inquiry on her
behalf)
INQDoc21 Adopted Development Brief for HW8 – Buckinghamshire County
Council 23/9
INQDoc22 Schedule of changes to HW8 23/9
INQDoc23 Delegated Authority for the adoption of the HW8 Development Brief
27/9
INQDoc24 Councillor Mark Dormer representing Penn Wood and Old Amersham
submitted written statement 30/9
INQDoc25 Updated Costs application from the appellants 30/9
INQDoc26 Closing submissions on behalf of the Local Planning Authority 30/9
INQDoc27 Closing submissions of Little Missenden Parish Council – Mr Alex Breed
30/9
INQDoc28 Closing submissions of Holmer Green Village Society – Mr Simon Jones
30/9
INQDoc29 Closing submissions of Hazlemere Parish Council – Mr Paul Fleming
30/9
INQDoc30 Closing submissions of Homer Green and Hazlemere Neighbourhood
Development Focus Group – Mrs Susan Jamson 30/9
INQDoc31 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellants 30/9
INQDoc32 Councillor Mark Dormer representing Penn Wood and Old Amersham
submitted written statement on the last day 30/9
Documents received after the close of the Inquiry
INQDoc32 Completed legal agreement - in 4 parts 14/10