Case Reference: 3299849

Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 18 October 2022
Site visits made on 17, 25 and 28 October 2022
by David M H Rose BA(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 20th December 2022
Appeal Reference: APP/N0410/W/22/3299849
Land at Beeches Park adjacent Amersham Road and Minerva Way,
Beaconsfield
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Buckinghamshire
Council.
• The application Reference PL/21/3151/OA, dated 4 August 2021, was refused by notice
dated 29 November 2021.
• The development proposed is: ‘Outline application with all matters reserved except
access for the erection of residential dwellings including affordable housing (Use Class
C3), new vehicular access points off Amersham Road and the Eastern Relief Road, a
local centre including a community building (Use Classes E(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), F1(d)(e),
F2(a)(b) and C3), a primary school and pre-school (Use Classes E(f) and F1(a)), public
open space and associated infrastructure’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary matters
(i) The Inquiry and Site Visits
2. The Inquiry opened on Tuesday 18 October 2022. I heard evidence over a
period of 9 days1. Although the majority of the evidence was subject to
cross-examination, discussion on housing land supply was in round table
format. In addition, the Appellant’s unchallenged proof of evidence on
affordable housing was ‘taken as read’. Closing Submissions were submitted
in writing with the agreement of the principal parties. I closed the Inquiry in
writing on 2 December 2022.
3. As well as the Appellant and the Council, the Inquiry was attended in-person
by The Beaconsfield Society, a Rule 6(6) Party. Interested persons were able
to ‘attend’ virtually using ‘Teams’ and one member of the public spoke and
asked questions of the Appellant’s witnesses in this manner. The final
discussion on draft conditions and planning obligations was held virtually on
8 November 2022.
1 On 18 – 21 and 24 – 27 October and 8 November 2022
4. I held Case Management Conferences, in virtual format, on 25 July and
5 September 2022, to make administrative arrangements and procedural
decisions in advance of the Inquiry itself. In addition, I issued Case
Management Notes dated 27 September and 11 October 20222.
5. Before the Inquiry, on the afternoon of 17 October, I visited the site and its
surroundings on an unaccompanied basis. At the Inquiry, the principal
parties agreed that an accompanied site visit was unnecessary. I carried out
further unaccompanied site visits to the site and its surroundings, including
Wilton Park, on 25 October (afternoon peak traffic and after dark) and on
28 October (mid-morning) to ensure that I had viewed the locality at various
times of the day.
6. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement3 relating
to a wider project than that for which planning permission was sought, in
that it assumed a greater delivery of residential units within the application
site and the provision of sports pitches within the Appellant’s control outside
of the application site. An Environmental Statement Addendum, replacing
earlier Addenda and updating the original Environmental Statement,
accompanied the appeal. I have taken all of the Environmental Information,
additional reports and the evidence available to the Inquiry, into account in
reaching my decision.
(ii) Planning Obligations
7. A completed Deed of Planning Obligations, made between the Council and
the Appellant, pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, is dated 25 November 20224. A Compliance Statement, in accordance
with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010,
and related supporting documents are also before me5.
8. The Deed contains 16 Schedules. In short, Schedule 1, Part 1, sets out
general measures for phasing and affordable housing; and Part 2 of the
same Schedule contains the detailed provisions for affordable housing,
namely 40% of the dwellings to be affordable housing units of which 25%
would be First Homes. Of the remainder, two-thirds would be affordable
rented housing and the remaining one-third would be shared ownership
housing. Schedule 2 relates to ‘performance’ by the Council.
9. Schedule 3 concerns the provision and management of on-site open space
and, subject to Schedule 12, a financial contribution of £504,000 for the
construction of off-site playing pitches and maintenance for a period of 25
years.
10. Education contributions form the basis of Schedule 4 to provide expansion of
primary school facilities at Holtspur School and the extension of secondary
school facilities at Holmer Green Senior School (or such other education
project to serve the development).
11. Surface water drainage, and subsequent management and maintenance, is
set out in Schedule 5.
2 CMN1: Hearing the evidence and outline timetable; CMN2: Draft Planning Conditions; and CMN3: Draft Main
Issues
3 Prepared under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as
amended
4 Inquiry Document 31
5 Inquiry Documents 33 – 36
12. Schedule 6 records the Travel Plan obligations; and Schedule 7 itemises a
highway works delivery programme; the payment of a public transport
contribution; improvements to the Pyebush roundabout; a community
transport contribution; and payment for monitoring infrastructure in the
vicinity of the London End/Park Lane roundabout. The land owner’s
obligations for notification are defined in Schedule 8.
13. A biodiversity offsetting scheme and monitoring contribution is required by
Schedule 9. Schedule 10 secures an employment skills plan. Management
Company obligations are described in Schedule 11. Schedule 12 provides for
off-site playing pitches. The provision of custom build plots is secured by
Schedule 13; and Schedule 14 assures a skylark mitigation strategy.
14. Schedule 15 guarantees a sum of £2023.87 per dwelling to mitigate the
adverse ecological impacts associated with recreational disturbance to the
Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation. The provision of a
community building within the site is captured by Schedule 16.
15. The final schedules, 17 and 18, relate to nomination rights and nomination
process.
16. The Compliance Schedule and associated documents provide justification
related to the underpinning tests set out in Regulation 122(2). There is clear
validation through extant development plan policies; and the financial
contributions are agreed and appear to be fair and reasonable. I am satisfied
that the Obligations meet the requirements of paragraph 57 of the National
Planning Policy Framework6 and Regulation 122(2).
17. There is also a Planning Obligation by way of Unilateral Undertaking7 which
would reserve the school site, which forms part of the appeal site layout, for
a period of 7 years for the provision of a primary school. There is no express
requirement for a new school arising from the proposed development, and
the Obligation does not therefore meet the relevant tests.
(iii) Draft Planning Conditions
18. A comprehensive suite of agreed draft planning conditions8, reflecting the
generality of development plan policy requirements, evolved during the
Inquiry. These include conditions relating to the submission and approval of
reserved matters; agreement on phasing and a design code; confirmation of
the maximum number of dwellings to be built; and limitations on the
community facilities and local centre units.
19. Pre-commencement conditions, agreed by the Appellant, include a
remediation scheme based on site investigation and risk assessment; a
Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity); a surface water
drainage scheme; details of highways; a Construction Management Plan; a
management plan for construction waste; a scheme of archaeological
investigation; arboricultural safeguards; measures for on-site renewable or
low carbon energy provision; a public art strategy; District Licence provisions
for Great Crested Newts; updated surveys for badgers and a reptile
mitigation strategy; and details of a biodiversity compensation strategy.
6 Hereafter the Framework
7 Inquiry Document 32
8 Inquiry Document 27
20. Pre-occupancy or other stage conditions include; ecological enhancements; a
strategic landscape plan; a landscape and ecological management plan; a
lighting design strategy; cycle and car parking; electric charging points;
details of equipped play areas; measures for embedded sustainable design
and energy efficiency; noise mitigation; wastewater provision; and
requirements for a proportion of dwellings to be designed to provide
accessible and adaptable accommodation.
(iv) The Development Plan9
21. The development plan includes the saved policies of the South Bucks District
Local Plan (1999, consolidated 2007 and 2011) and the South Bucks Core
Strategy (2011). The most important policies for the determination of this
appeal are summarised below.
22. In terms of the Local Plan, the whole of South Bucks is included within the
Metropolitan Green Belt save for a number of excluded settlements which
include Beaconsfield. Policy GB1 defines the Green Belt boundaries (with
reference to the Proposals Map) and restricts development to defined
categories (without the qualification of ‘except in very special circumstances’).
23. Policy EP3 seeks design which is ‘compatible with the character and amenities of
the site itself, adjoining development and the locality in general’, with regard to six
guiding principles. Policy EP4 sets expectations for landscaping and EP6
relates to reducing the opportunity for crime against both people and
property. Policy H9 mirrors Policy EP3 and adds: ‘The Council will not grant
planning permission for proposals which do not make as full and effective use of land
as would be possible whilst remaining consistent with all other policies in this Plan’.
24. Moving on to the Core Strategy, Core Policy 1, now out-of-date in its housing
provision and delivery figures, indicates that the focus for new residential
development will be Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and, to a lesser extent,
Burnham. Core Policy 5 requires new residential development to be
supported by adequate open space and recreation facilities.
25. Measures to safeguard the natural environment are set out in Core Policy 9,
with particular reference to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) and the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation. More
generally, the landscape characteristics and biodiversity resources within
South Bucks will be conserved and enhanced.
26. Finally, Core Policy 14 identifies the nearby Wilton Park (Opportunity Site) as
a major developed site in the Green Belt. Its promotion for redevelopment is
currently undergoing implementation.
(v) Principal Matters of Common Ground
27. All three parties agree that the proposal would be inappropriate development
as defined by paragraph 147 of the Framework. In addition, the proposal
would not result in conflict with paragraph 138 purpose b) to prevent
neighbouring towns merging into one another and purpose d) to preserve
the setting and special character of historic towns.
9 Saved Policies
28. They also agree that the South Bucks area (which is the relevant
predecessor authority10) cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of
housing land. I return to this in due course and note at this stage that the
creation of the new unitary authority, and the intention to produce a new
local plan (including the call for Brownfield Sites), does not change the basis
for assessment.
29. The Appellant and the Council agree that the proposed development would
deliver 40% affordable housing across the site and with a tenure mix that
reflects the Framework, the Government’s First Homes guidance and Core
Policy 3. The section 106 Agreement resolves reason for refusal 7.
30. Further, in relation to reason for refusal 8, the information on carbon sinks
submitted with the appeal has demonstrated that the proposed development
would not have an unacceptable impact on greenhouse gas emissions
contributing to climate change. It is also the case, with reference to reason
for refusal 11, that surface water drainage is no longer at issue and the
requirements of Core Policy 13 would be met.
31. During the course of the Inquiry, after extensive discussions between the
Appellant and the Council, a Highways Statement of Common Ground11
confirmed that refusal reasons 4 and 5 had been resolved. In this regard,
although the development traffic impact was considered material, it was
agreed that mitigation on the London End roundabout could be achieved by
monitoring and management; and physical highway works would mitigate
predicted impacts on the Pyebush roundabout. These would be secured
through the bilateral Planning Obligations. A package of measures would also
settle concerns about sustainable accessibility. As such, there would be no
conflict with Core Policy 7 and Local Plan Policy TR5.
32. It is also the case that National Highways raises no objections, subject to
conditions to secure a Travel Plan and a Construction Management Plan12.
Earlier written representations, from Beaconsfield Town Council and
interested persons, do not provide any technical basis to gainsay the agreed
highways position.
33. It has also been confirmed that reason for refusal 10, concerning the
integrity of the air quality modelling, falls away as a consequence of the up-
dated traffic modelling and there would be no tension with the development
plan13. Again, despite earlier representations, there is no technical evidence
to undermine the position reached during the Inquiry.
Main Issues
34. Having regard to the foregoing, the main issues remaining are:
(i) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;
(ii) the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development,
including its influence on the landscape setting of the Chilterns Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);
10 Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 68-025-20190722
11 Inquiry Document 23
12 Inquiry Document 22
13 Inquiry Documents 24a) and 24b)
(iii) whether the proposal would result in a well-designed place, with
particular reference to the illustrative Masterplan and parameter
details of layout, land use, building heights, building density,
movement and access, and green and blue infrastructure, in the
context of its interface with existing townscape, movement corridors
and open land uses;
(iv) the impacts of the proposed development on European Protected Sites
and Species; non-European Protected Reptiles; and badgers taking
account of intended mitigation/offsetting measures and proposals for
Biodiversity Net Gain; and
(v) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other
harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to
amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the
proposal.
Reasons
The first main issue:
The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
(i) The Green Belt evidence base and Local Plan Preparation
35. The Green Belt around Beaconsfield is part of the London Metropolitan Green
Belt that has its origins in the 1950s. In 2016 the Buckinghamshire
Authorities published a Green Belt Assessment, undertaken by an
independent party, to form a shared evidence base for the preparation of
subsequent local plans.
36. The Part 1 Assessment14 identified the land to the east of Beaconsfield,
extending eastward to Gerrards Cross/Chalfont St Peter, as meeting
Framework purposes strongly with particular reference to preventing
encroachment into the countryside; preventing outward sprawl; and
maintaining the overall scale of the gap between Beaconsfield and
neighbouring settlements.
37. However, it acknowledged that the western edge of that area (including the
current appeal site) ‘…… has a strong visual connection with the edge of
Beaconsfield, as well as limited inter-visibility with the wider countryside, and a
degree of envelopment created by urban form to the south (Wilton Park), west (the
prominent settlement edge of Beaconsfield) and north (the railway line). ……’.
38. The view expressed was that the reduced area would make a lesser
contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl and in assisting in safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment. It also noted that a proposed relief road
(now the constructed Eastern Relief Road), to the east of Beaconsfield,
would dissect the area (towards its eastern edge) thus creating a more
robustly defined sub-area which may score weakly if considered in isolation.
39. In turn, the Part 2 Assessment15 considered the land immediately east of
Beaconsfield, and bound by the line of the proposed Eastern Relief Road (the
appeal site and part of the existing built-up area/allotments – Area 1.13A),
in conjunction with other nearby parcels of land.
14 CD 10.4
15 CD 10.8
40. In the scenario that assumed that adjoining land to the south would not be
released from the Green Belt, it was concluded that the area performed
moderately against preventing outward sprawl; it made little contribution to
preventing neighbouring towns from merging and in preserving the setting
and special character of Beaconsfield’s historic core; and relatively strongly
in terms of Wider Green Belt objectives. Finally, it was said ‘if released from
the Green Belt in isolation, Area 1.13A would have boundaries that are
strong/acceptable in NPPF [Framework] terms’.
41. The ensuing Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Report, which formed
part of the then emerging evidence base for the Chiltern and South Bucks
Local Plan 2016-203616, recommended a number of sites for release from
the Green Belt, for different types of development to contribute to meeting
local needs and/or future opportunities, in acknowledgement that the Green
Belt covered 88% of Chiltern and 87% of South Bucks Districts.
42. The appeal site, in combination with land to the south-east (Wilton Park) and
land to the south (including a parcel between the Pyebush Roundabout and
the M40 motorway) was one of the areas recommended for release ‘…… even
though they may score moderately in terms of Green Belt Purpose ……’ due to their
sustainable location and the contribution which they could make to meeting
acute need in a sustainable way.
43. For this area, it was concluded: ‘Overall, this area performs moderately against
Green Belt Purposes. The area contributes to protecting the openness of the
countryside and in preventing the outward sprawl of the Beaconsfield large built-up
area. The area makes little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from
merging, and also to the setting and special character of a historic town’.
44. Moreover: ‘The site can make a very significant contribution to meeting the
development needs of the Districts in a highly sustainable location. The impacts on
the Green Belt can be mitigated and a firm and defensible boundary either exists or
can be provided. The benefits of the release of the site and its subsequent
development clearly outweigh the disbenefits. Exceptional circumstances therefore
exist for the release of this site from the Green Belt’.
45. The indicative capacity of the site was a total of 1,600 dwellings, including
640 affordable housing units.
46. The site was promoted for mixed use development through the,
subsequently withdrawn, Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan17 under policy
SP BP9. In summary, this called for an integrated, coordinated and
comprehensive planning approach within a single masterplan to ensure a
well-connected and high quality design outcome; the completion of the
Eastern Relief Road at an early stage; highway works; and the provision of
supporting facilities either physically or by financial contribution.
47. Despite significant local opposition, there is nothing to suggest that the
Council intended to resile from the allocation. However, with the withdrawal
of the Plan, its suitability or otherwise was not examined. As such, the
Council is not bound by the draft allocation and the withdrawn Local Plan
carries no formal weight.
48. Nonetheless, the contributory documents identified above, as a considered
re-evaluation of Green Belt boundaries in order to meet development needs,
carry significant weight.
16 CD 10.9
17 Withdrawal was a consequence of failing the ‘Duty to Co-operate’
(ii) Assessment of the effects on openness and Green Belt purposes
49. Paragraph 137 of the Framework confirms that the Government attaches
great importance to Green Belts. It explains that the fundamental aim of
Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently
open. It adds that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and permanence.
50. It is an established principle that the concept of openness has a spatial as
well as a visual aspect.
51. With regard to the spatial aspect, the site comprises some 24 ha of
undeveloped countryside, in arable use, with a woodland spine. It is spatially
completely open.
52. In visual terms, the principal characteristics of openness are experienced
along its southern edge from Minerva Way; along its north-eastern edge
from the Eastern Relief Road; and on part of its western side from
Amersham Road. The openness of the site can also be appreciated from the
northerly continuation of Amersham Road (to the point of crossing over the
railway) and from Maxwell Road. Although the central woodland belt divides
the land, and for the most part inhibits views across the site, the underlying
impression of openness remains.
53. As a consequence, there is no doubt that the appeal proposal, even with the
retention of the woodland, and generous open space and related
landscaping, would have an acute effect on the openness of this part of the
Green Belt. I shall return to its wider implications in further consideration
below.
54. Turning to the stated purposes of Green Belt, and with initial reference to
the objective of checking unrestricted sprawl, Beaconsfield has a well-
defined eastern edge along Amersham Road with the bulk of built
development on its western side. The proposal would inexorably be seen as
an evident, large-scale extension of the established settlement.
55. That said, the appeal site has clear demarcation along Minerva Way and
marked delineation by the Eastern Relief Road. The relief road itself cuts
across open countryside and it has had a physical and perceptual effect on
the experience of the landscape. I acknowledge that, for the most-part, it is
well assimilated albeit the austere acoustic barrier on its north-eastern side,
towards the Amersham Road roundabout, has an undeniable adverse spatial
and visual impact.
56. Looking at the road corridor as a whole, its influence is marked by its
generous and distinct engineered form with attendant infrastructure and
traffic. The proximity of Wilton Park cannot be ignored and there are some
views, notably at its northern end, towards the built edge of Beaconsfield.
Nonetheless, offsetting factors include the presence of open land on either
side of the route and, particularly at its southern end, isolation from
Beaconsfield itself. Overall, in my opinion, the relief road does little to
disassociate the appeal site from the wider countryside.
57. Although the Eastern Relief Road does not replace or extend the long-
established edge to Beaconsfield, it does now, nonetheless, represent a clear
and robust defensible boundary which would be capable of restricting further
sprawl. To my mind, it would serve the function of safeguarding the strategic
value of the Green Belt in terms of Beaconsfield’s relationship with Gerrards
Cross/Chalfont St Peter.
58. Moving on to the aim of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment, the appeal site has very little in the way of urban influences.
The principal built-up limits of Beaconsfield rest apart and the development
at Wilton Park stands aloof to the south-east. The cricket ground to the
south of Minerva Way and the golf course, beyond dense woodland to the
east of the relief road, do not undermine the notable contribution that the
appeal site makes to the immediate and wider open countryside.
59. Finally, although the development of a green field site would run counter to
the purpose of encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land,
the Council recognises that there is little scope for such land to make a
contribution of sufficient scale to housing need. Whilst various possible sites
were identified by an interested person, it is evident to me that, even with
the understandable limitations of that exercise, green field sites will be
needed to provide the necessary homes having particular regard to market
choice.
(iii) Overall analysis
60. Drawing together these threads, I have found that there would be a loss of
openness in spatial and visual terms. I also consider that the purpose of
checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas would be
undermined; but only to a limited extent given the site’s physical
boundaries. Additionally, there would be conflict with the role of
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
61. Paragraph 148 of the Framework confirms that when considering any
planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the
Green Belt. In this case there is an inevitable overlap with the main issues
relating to landscape and visual impact and the design concept for the
development. Consideration of these main issues is set out below.
The second main issue:
The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development, including its
influence on the landscape setting of the Chilterns AONB
(i) Landscape Character Assessment and the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green
Belt Development Options
62. The South Bucks District Landscape Character Assessment places the appeal
site within Landscape Character Area (LCA) 22.1 Beaconsfield Mixed Use
Terrace. It is acknowledged that the appeal site displays a number of
characteristics of the wider area with particular reference to its rolling
topography occupied by open fields set against a backdrop of mature trees
and woodland.
63. The area is described as18: ‘…… a highly varied and disparate landscape. The
contrast between human development, arable fields and woodland creates a
landscape which lacks unity. The variety of land uses and land cover creates a
landscape which is visually busy’. The strength of character/intactness is
defined as ‘weak’ and it is noted that the ‘high presence of human development
reduces the distinctive character of the landscape’.
64. The Landscape Guidelines, in short, include the need to conserve woodland;
promote appropriate management of arable farmland; consider opportunities
for tree/woodland planting to contain/reduce audible and visual impact of
modern development; and maintain open views across fields.
18 CD 9.6 part 5
65. These findings fed into the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt
Development Options19 as part of the evidence base for the withdrawn Local
Plan. Land east of Beaconsfield was divided into five sub-areas to reflect the
size and varying character across the area. Site 9B relates to the appeal site.
66. The strategy/vision for the wider area was to ‘conserve and protect the mosaic
of woodland, open farmland and parkland, and to maintain the remaining areas of
tranquillity’.
67. At the time of assessment, pre-dating the relief road, the eastern boundary
of Site 9B was not marked by any landscape feature on the ground. Its
landscape character sensitivity was found to be medium; so too was its
overall landscape sensitivity; and its landscape capacity was recorded as
medium/high.
68. In terms of the relationship with the wider countryside: ‘continuous open
countryside to the north, across railway line to the Chilterns AONB, across to the
east and down to the south’; and ‘part of the 18th century historic estate of Wilton
Park, although limited features remain’.
69. The potential impact on key visual characteristics was recorded as: ‘loss of
views over open countryside on eastern side of Beaconsfield’ and; ‘adverse visual
impact on PRoW and open character’.
70. Reference to the potential impact on key settlement characteristics recorded:
‘originally the settlement of Beaconsfield was retained by Park Lane (A355), creating
a strong defined edge to the built form. If the new A355 is built this will replace this
built edge and extend Beaconsfield further to the east’.
71. Consideration of Site 9B concluded with a recommended development area
(Figure 9B.2) and measures for landscape mitigation and enhancement. Of
particular relevance to the appeal proposal, these included the protection of
the central woodland; and a landscape strategy based on restoring the 18th
century parkland character of the Wilton Park Estate (in combination with
Sites 9A, 9C and 9D). The final capacity of the site in landscape terms was to
be informed by a detailed landscape and visual assessment. Figure 9B.2
indicated a deep green buffer on the northern side of Minerva Way and a
narrower buffer to the north-eastern boundary of the site (with the intended
relief road).
(ii) Assessment of landscape and visual impacts
72. Following my conclusions above, which firmly place the appeal site in the
countryside in both landscape and visual senses, it is necessary for me to
assess the nature of the effects arising from the proposal. Here I confine
myself to broad impacts in that there is considerable overlap with the third
main issue where I consider design matters in more detail.
73. Firstly, the appeal site adjoins the urban edge of Beaconsfield, although it
cannot be said that it has significant urban fringe characteristics. Here, to a
modest degree, part of the built-up area exerts an urban influence on the
northern part of the site. The clearly defined, surfaced, shared
footpath/cycleway, which is seemingly well-used, is an added factor. In
addition, the roundabout junction with the relief road, and the northern
section of that road, are further features which provide context in terms of
definition, activity and lack of tranquillity.
19 CD10.14(c)
74. The continuation of the Eastern Relief Road southwards, and its generally
steady flow of vehicles, also provides physical delineation reinforced by
traffic noise and movement. The woodland a little to the east of the road,
within a wider well-wooded setting, is a further contextual factor.
75. To the south, Minerva Way, which has been closed to through traffic, borders
the appeal site and it is, in turn, abutted by woodland on its southern side
along a significant part of its length. Part of London Road, with attendant
traffic noise, is referable at its western end beyond the cricket ground. The
central and eastern sections of Minerva Way are increasingly influenced by
the southern end of the relief road before it dips and curves out of view.
76. Overall, taking into account the predominant containment of the appeal site
in one form or another, I consider that, in terms of principle, residential
development would not result in any significant landscape effects on the
character of the wider landscape character area.
77. As to visual effects, it is common ground that the wooded nature of the
wider area and the built-up edge of Beaconsfield preclude long-distance
views of the site from the surrounding countryside and from the AONB.
78. The parcel of land to the north of the central woodland belt is generally open
to view from the highway network and also from the properties on the
western side of Amersham Road, to the north of the public footpath across
the site, and obliquely from subsidiary streets. Outward views across the site
are curtailed by the woodland to the west of the golf course.
79. On the approach from the north into Beaconsfield, the town has an
increasing marked presence, to the west, having passed over the railway
line. Part of the appeal site is seen, beyond the immediate foreground of the
roundabout, with the central tree belt and woodland to the east of the relief
road limiting further views.
80. The public footpath crossing this part of the site, forming a pleasant outlet
from the built-up area, lacks long distant views and its ends are defined by
properties on Amersham Road to the west and the relief road and associated
infrastructure to the east.
81. From the northern part of the Eastern Relief Road, the appeal site has the
backdrop of properties along Amersham Road which mark the nearby built
edge of Beaconsfield. By contrast, in the approach from the south,
immediately beyond Minerva Way, the central woodland belt within the site
masks any semblance of the built-up area. However, this progressively
changes along the mid-point of the relief road where a gap in the woodland
starts to reveal a view towards a small number of properties backed by a
wide sweep of more distant wooded slopes.
82. Looking next from Minerva Way, the predominant view of the southern part
of the appeal site is one of an open field backed by woodland. Trees along
the opposite side of the route provide enclosure. Overall, outward views are
of short distance within an enfolding woodland setting. It is, however, noted
that the eastern end of Minerva Way has the tangible presence of the relief
road and views towards Wilton Park, albeit the built aspect of this area will
change with the planned demolition of the tower block and removal of
frontage properties as the redevelopment of the site progresses.
(iv) Overall analysis
83. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the visual envelope of the
appeal site is generally limited to short distance views. The southern part
has distinct rural qualities, whereas the northern part has a somewhat
greater urban influence in its relationship with the wider countryside.
Additionally, whilst there are selected viewpoints with views towards the
backdrop of the AONB, the appeal site itself does not contribute to the
landscape character and beauty of the designated area. These findings
indicate that, in principle, residential development could be accommodated
without significant adverse landscape and visual impacts.
84. At this point it relevant to record that the Council accepts that the landscape
and visual impacts would be local to the site; however, the issue at play, in
common with the Beaconsfield Society, is the Appellant’s design approach
which I consider in the next main issue.
The third main issue:
Whether the proposal would result in a well-designed place, with particular
reference to the illustrative Masterplan and parameter details of layout, land use,
building heights, building density, movement and access, and green and blue
infrastructure, in the context of its interface with existing townscape, movement
corridors and open land uses
(i) Clarification of the main issue
85. In terms of the initial framing of the main issue, during the Inquiry the
Council accepted that the density proposed across the appeal site was in
keeping with those found elsewhere in the immediate locality and consistent
with the approach recommended in the Landscape Capacity Assessment. It
was also confirmed that a homogenous approach to density, dwellings height
and layout would not be appropriate and that a variety of heights, density
and landscape treatments could contribute towards a sense of place and
legibility for people living in and visiting the scheme.
(ii) The design approach
86. The Appellant’s vision for the site ‘…… is to provide appropriate, organic growth
for the town of Beaconsfield in harmony with its character and traditions ……’20. It is
said that ‘the design and layout are the result of a very careful and sensitive design
approach, utilising a ‘landscape led’ approach to create a high quality and
memorable place ……’21.
87. For my part, looking at the scheme in its broadest sense through the aims of
the Design and Access Statement and illustrative Masterplan, elements
consistent with the vision include tree-lined streets; continuity of form for
enclosure and definition; coherent groupings in various layouts; a
neighbourhood park; a network and variety of green infrastructure;
distinctive street scenes; and a strong sense of integration, permeability and
sustainable access to key facilities.
88. With this in mind, I now turn to the principal matters between the parties.
20 CD 1.12 page 5
21 Appellant’s Urban Design Proof of Evidence paragraph 3.3
(iii) The Interface with Minerva Way
89. By way of background, Minerva Way had its origins as part of the earliest
public road between Beaconsfield and Chalfont St Giles. It was taken over to
form an access route to Wilton Park and its 18th century country house set
within an extensive park with areas of woodland and scattered specimen
trees. The house transferred to military use during WWII and was
demolished in the 1960s.
90. During the 1960s and 1980s military buildings were constructed in the
former gardens and in part of the park; a golf course was established in the
northern part of the park; a cricket ground was laid to the west; and a
number of other developments and alterations took place. The later 20th
century also saw a move to general agricultural use, loss of internal field
boundaries and scattered trees as well as new areas of tree planting. More
recently the Eastern Relief Road has cut through the former park.
91. Recalling the conclusions of the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green
Belt Development Options22, potential impacts on key landscape
characteristics included: ‘…… loss of historic features including driveway …… loss
of open character of an area of parkland and setting of Minerva Way ……’. The
recommendation relevant to this issue called for ‘a landscape strategy ……
based on conserving and restoring the 18th century parkland character of the Wilton
Park Estate ……’.
92. Although the resultant recommended development area and landscape
mitigation and enhancement figure23 anticipated a significant green buffer to
Minerva Way, this was not based on any transparent analysis or justification
and, to my mind, it is to be treated as purely illustrative. As such, the
intention needs to be reviewed in light of the material before me.
93. The National Design Guide explains that ‘well-designed places and buildings
come about when there is a clearly expressed ‘story’ for the design concept and how
it has evolved into a design proposal’. It sets out components for good design
including the context for places and buildings: ‘well-designed places are based
on a sound understanding of the features of the site and the surrounding context ……
and responsive to local history, culture and heritage’.
94. It is self-evident that Minerva Way no longer serves its original purpose or
has the characteristics of an estate drive through parkland. Its course has
been severed by the relief road, its destination has disappeared and the
former parkland is much changed. Its history is no longer tangible.
Nonetheless, the notion of preserving its heritage, in modern form
associated with ongoing change, would be consistent with contributing to the
quality and character of the place commensurate with its function as an
important pedestrian/cyclist corridor.
95. That said, the illustrative green buffer in Figure 9B.2 cuts across the
southern part of the appeal site without reference to topography, vegetation
or field boundaries. Moreover, its generous swathe would offer little prospect
of conserving absent, or restoring lost, parkland character. In my opinion,
the objective now should be to provide a complementary setting to Minerva
Way, with due recognition for its current rural aspect and its role in linking
Beaconsfield with the wider countryside and the new community at Wilton
Park.
22 CD 10.14(c)
23 Figure 9B.2
96. The treatment of the southern-most part of the appeal site consists of three
distinct elements: community grow space and local equipped area for play; a
group of dwellings; and outdoor space associated with the proposed school.
It is noted that the Movement and Access Strategy places no reliance on the
direct interface of the appeal site with Minerva Way, save for a shared
cycle/footway which would emerge from the south-western corner of the site
towards the western end of Minerva Way.
97. Whilst the proposed open land uses would be important to the experience of
using Minerva Way, the cross-section, that sets out the intended relationship
between the proposed group of dwellings, provides for a landscaped
hedgerow strip with a line of ‘street trees’. The houses would lie a short
distance beyond an intervening shared private drive24. To my mind, although
the occupants could provide some welcome surveillance, the positioning of
built development, even with foreground softening and a loose informal
arrangement, would not respond to the open character of the site, its wider
rural aspect or the context of Minerva Way.
98. Moreover, it is noted that this part of the site is annotated as ‘Woodlands’ in
the Design and Access Statement. Here it is said that ‘…… there is a need to
create a ‘softer’ edge to the development which can act as a buffer to Minerva Way
……’25. In my opinion, the outcome would not capture convincingly the
intended softer edge or buffer and it would fail the objective of the
‘landscape-led’ approach.
99. In addition, even with an ‘avenue’ of trees along the southern boundary of
the site, the overall treatment of the interface with Minerva Way would not
support the designers’ concept of creating a traditional parkland setting26.
100. I have had regard to the development currently taking place at Wilton Park,
insofar as the recent approval of certain reserved matters departs from the
green buffer identified for the northern part of that site where it adjoins the
continuation of Minerva Way. However, I find nothing of sufficient
importance to undermine the site specific considerations of the proposal
before me.
101. Overall, I consider that the juxtaposition of development along Minerva Way
would not have a positive and coherent identity or a form and character that
would fit its context.
(iv) The Interface with the Eastern Relief Road
102. The focus of contention here is the form of development, up to three storeys
and with building densities up to 70 dwellings per hectare (dph) for the local
centre and up to 45 dph thereafter, along the north-eastern side of the site,
broadly between the reserved school site and the northern tip of the central
woodland belt. Particular considerations are the relationship with the wider
countryside and the response to the Eastern Relief Road.
103. It will be recalled, with reference to the Landscape Capacity Assessment for
Green Belt Development Options, that Figure 9.B2 envisaged landscape
mitigation and enhancement between the development and the relief road.
Again, the plan is indicative and it is impossible to quantify what might have
been intended.
24 It was said in evidence that the houses would be approximately 17m from Minerva Way itself
25 CD 1.12 page 88
26 CD 1.12 page 9 ‘In summary, the key objective of the design process is to combine a mature parkland setting
with Beaconsfield’s traditional sense of community.’
104. Nonetheless, my earlier assessment concludes that the southern part of the
appeal site has a distinctly rural character. The National Design Guide
reminds us that: ‘Context is the location of the development and the attributes of
its immediate, local and regional surroundings …… well-designed places are: based
on a sound understanding of the features of the site and the surrounding context
……; integrated into their surroundings so they relate well to them; influenced by
and influence their context positively ……’.
105. The Design and Access Statement27, reinforced by the Parameters Plans and
the illustrative Masterplan, indicate that the scale of the buildings comprising
the local centre would be ‘…… designed to ensure that there is a sense of
enclosure around the main public realm’ with ‘strong, continuous facades ……’.
106. For the housing: ‘…… medium density residential development, structured around
perimeter blocks …… characterised by the interplay between the prominent edges of
the scheme and the gateway environment that the development in combination with
Amersham Road and the relief road will create’28. Additionally: ‘The third key
frontage will be that which overlooks the relief road …… this will consist of residential
frontage set behind the advanced tree planting which is already growing along the
western side of the relief road’29. These stated aspirations indicate to me that
the relationship with the wider countryside was not a primary consideration.
107. Notwithstanding the intention to create informality through a mix of broken,
continuous and stepped building frontages, and to vary building heights, and
to take advantage of the generous western margin of the relief road and its
related planting, I consider that the scale and intensity of the development
would result in an uncompromising and harsh extended settlement edge.
108. Although the existing built-up area of Beaconsfield was noted, in the
Landscape Character Assessment, to permeate the north-west of the
character area, the proposed development would further compound that
impact. The relationship with the wider open countryside would become
more absolute and the horizon of the backdrop AONB would be substantially
eroded and dominated by the height and bulk of foreground buildings. Those
same buildings, governing the forward view from a southerly direction,
would also undermine the visual association between the northern tip of the
central tree belt and the wider woodland setting of the area.
109. The Appellant’s rationale for the design approach to the Eastern Relief Road
is based on it being a negative feature that creates a poor user experience
for pedestrians and cyclists. The intention is to turn it into a tree-lined
avenue consistent with the National Model Design Code30. The Framework
also indicates that ‘decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined (unless,
in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would
be inappropriate)’.
110. The Design Code shows that relief roads can often be designed to emphasise
the sense of place, for example as avenues. Avenues are described as
‘streets with a central carriageway and wide tree-lined verges’.
111. However, the proposed development would merely add a string of buildings
close to the margins of the relief road with limited scope for additional
planting. To my mind, it would not transform the road into an avenue over
27 CD 1.12 page 68
28 CD 1.12 page 65
29 CD 1.12 pages 74 - 76
30 CD 8.4 page 51
and above what has already been provided for in the delivery of the route
and its related landscaping. Nor would it improve character or placemaking
in light of my conclusions about the impact of the scheme on the wider
countryside landscape.
112. As to the other claimed benefits, a safer and improved experience for users
cannot be denied. However, this, and any advantage in terms of
ameliorating noise or contributing to the visibility and viability of the local
centre, would be significantly outweighed by the harm that I have described.
113. Further, in my opinion, the assertion that the approach would stitch the
existing neighbourhoods of Beaconsfield together, rather than treating the
road as a barrier, lacks conviction in that the role of the road as a transport
corridor, carrying some 14,000 vehicles each day, would be untouched by
the proposals.
(v) The Local Centre and the Reserved School Site
114. Matters between the parties relate to the location and scale of the local
centre; its potential viability; and the rationale for future school provision.
By way of background, the concept masterplan prepared for the land
proposed for release from the Green Belt identified the south-eastern corner
of the appeal site for school and community hub provision. The location of
the proposed local centre and the reserved school site generally reflect the
earlier scheme. Nonetheless, it is the Appellant’s case that the current
proposal is not simply a ‘cut and paste’ of the earlier masterplan.
115. Although the Council would prefer the local centre to be of lesser scale to
serve the needs of the development itself, and to be embedded more
centrally within the site, where it says that focus and higher densities would
be better balanced, I recognise the clear advantage for the facilities to have
the benefit of prominence to secure passing trade and to assist viability. I
also accept that such a location gets support from examination of the
walking distances and the opportunity to serve the residents of Wilton Park.
Nonetheless, its height parameters tell against the proposed location for the
reasons given above.
116. As to the reserved school site, taking account of committed development at
Wilton Park and the scale of the appeal proposal, it is evident that there is
no need for on-site school provision. The offer of safeguarding is on the
premise that further residential development is likely to occur in the locality
necessitating new school provision. However, although there is attraction in
safeguarding future options pending the outcome of the local plan process,
this part of the design is essentially speculative and without evident
foundation.
(vi) Overall Analysis
117. There is no doubt that the proposal, in terms of design, has a number of
positive attributes including the provision of green infrastructure with focus
on the central tree belt; mixed character areas; permeability; and
sustainable access to key facilities.
118. However, I have found a failure to have sufficient regard to context, in terms
of the relationship of the proposal with the wider landscape, and with
particular reference to the interface with both Minerva Way and the Eastern
Relief Road.
119. I have recognised the aspiration to improve the experience of the Eastern
Relief Road, but have found that to be unconvincing. Similarly, whilst it is
the aim of the scheme to create a ‘bridge’ between Beaconsfield and Wilton
Park, with a ‘range of community, open space and education benefits for both new
and existing communities’31, this does not counter the fundamental design
flaws that I have described.
120. I have paid particular attention to the thrust of the Framework to make
effective use of land, notably paragraph 125, ‘where there is an existing or
anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially
important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low
densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each
site’.
121. However, a balance is clearly intended in that paragraph 130 c) sets out that
decisions should ensure that developments ‘are sympathetic to local character
and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting,
while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as
increased densities)’.
122. In the context of the Framework as a whole, I consider that the design vision
pursued by the Appellant, reinforced by the Strategic Design Code, has failed
to fully understand the area’s defining characteristics and special qualities
and, as a result, it has failed to reflect these in the design of the
development. Whilst the proposal would be capable of functioning well in
isolation, it would not add to the overall quality of the area. As such, it
cannot be said to be well-designed.
The fourth main issue:
The impacts of the proposed development on European Protected Sites and
Species; non-European Protected Reptiles; and badgers taking account of
intended mitigation/offsetting measures and proposals for Biodiversity Net Gain
(i) European Protected Sites and Species
123. The appeal site falls within the zone of influence for Burnham Beeches
Special Area of Conservation. The Strategic Access Management and
Monitoring Strategy to mitigate the impacts of recreation pressure requires a
financial contribution, in line with Buckinghamshire Council’s Supplementary
Planning Document, in the sum of £2023.87 per dwelling. This would be
secured in the bilateral planning agreement.
124. Although Great Crested Newts have not been found on the appeal site,
records of proximity are sufficient to require mitigation. A District Licence
Report has been prepared, at the Appellant’s expense, and planning
conditions attached to any grant of permission would secure formal
authorisation. An agreed second payment would also be assured by
obligation.
(ii) Non-European Protected Reptiles
125. The nub of the dispute between the Council and the Appellant is whether
adequate surveys have been undertaken to establish the likely impact on
reptiles, notably grass snake, slow worm and common lizard so as to
adequately inform the design approach for the development of the site.
31 CD1.12 section 3.3
126. Chronologically, Jacobs undertook a reptile survey in 2015 (the 2015
Report), which included part of the appeal site, associated with the
assessment of the then proposed Eastern Relief Road. CSA Environmental
surveyed a wider area, including the appeal site, in 2018 (the 2019 Report)
and an update survey, limited to the appeal site and land proposed for
sports pitches to the east of the relief road, in 2021 (the 2021 Report).
127. The Jacobs survey recorded the presence of the three species of interest in
the north-western part of the site and along that part of the western
boundary which was included within the survey area. The greatest
populations were found to the north of the proposed road alignment,
especially in the vicinity of the railway, and a distribution along and to the
east of the proposed route.
128. The 2019 Report indicates that seven reptile surveys, to determine presence
or absence of reptiles, were undertaken in the spring/summer of 2018, prior
to the construction of the Eastern Relief Road. Slow worm and common
lizard were recorded by the railway; in the vicinity of the western boundary
of the appeal site; in the south-western part of the site on the edge of the
central tree belt; and on the margins of the wooded area to the east of the
planned relief road. The peak counts revealed 16 slow worm; 4 common
lizard; and one grass snake.
129. The aim of the 2021 survey was ‘to confirm the continued presence of
widespread reptile species …… and to review general distribution’. Slow worm were
recorded along most boundaries of the site, other than adjacent to the relief
road, and with a greatest presence along the central woodland belt; and
grass snake were found in the western part of the site towards Amersham
Road. Peak counts were 8 slow worm and 2 grass snake.
130. Consequently, neither the 2018 survey nor the 2021 survey support the
proposition that the appeal site qualifies as a Key Reptile Site in accordance
with Froglife Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey. However, that conclusion
rests on the efficacy, or otherwise, of the 2018 and 2021 surveys.
131. Froglife advice identifies three types of survey: presence/absence survey;
detailed survey; and monitoring. To my mind, the 2018 survey provided an
appropriate starting point to determine the presence/absence of species of
interest. Understandably, the refugia were located around the general
locations where slow worm, grass snake and common lizard would be most
likely found, particularly unmanaged grassland, woodland, areas of scrub
and ponds rather than within areas laid to arable. Indeed, Froglife provides
an illustration of ‘where to look for reptiles’ which supports this conclusion.
132. The results broadly mirrored those of the 2015 survey, insofar as
comparison could be made. In turn, the 2021 survey corroborated earlier
work. Consequently, given the relatively low numbers and broadly consistent
distribution, and the characteristics of the site, I am satisfied that
presence/absence surveys were appropriate to the task.
133. As to the alleged limitations of the surveys, the 2019 Report recorded
refugia either being moved or destroyed, albeit they were subsequently
replaced. In addition, consistently high temperatures throughout July and
August 2018 resulted in fewer opportunities to conduct surveys at optimum
temperatures and further work was undertaken in September. Although a
number of the surveys fell outside the ‘best times to search’, outlined in
Froglife, some of the highest recorded levels of activity were at times outside
the optimal windows. I am content that this was sufficiently robust.
134. In terms of the 2021 surveys, which did not reveal presence of common
lizard32, the walk over is described as ‘between refugia locations’ without any
indication of undertaking a visual search of the entire site and potentially
less optimal locations. Whilst that might have been more conclusive of
presence/absence, I am satisfied that the work was proportionate. Again,
timings were generally outside the recommended hours of search but
weather conditions, in terms of temperature and general lack of
precipitation, were favourable. On this basis, I see no fundamental
shortcomings.
135. It is also said that the northern part of the site was not surveyed; and, if
that was precluded by works in connection with the relief road, this should
have been recorded. Whilst this ought to have been noted as a limitation, it
is apparent from photographic evidence that the land north of the public
footpath was awaiting restoration associated with road construction.
136. Next, with regard to whether or not there had been sufficient survey visits,
Froglife indicates: ‘to establish presence generally at least seven visits in suitable
weather conditions at the appropriate time of year may be required’. That has
been fulfilled on two separate occasions consistent with the purpose. A
greater number of surveys, at least 20 per season, ‘to gain some idea of
relative population size or to identify key areas’, would, in my opinion, have been
disproportionate to the information necessary to support the planning
application.
137. Overall, having regard to Froglife, Natural England’s Guidance and
Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland Methodology, I am satisfied that
the surveys undertaken by the Appellant provided a reasonable
understanding of reptile presence so as to inform a mitigation strategy.
138. The 2021 Report33 confirms the presence of slow worm along the majority of
boundaries of the site, with most recordings along the central woodland
corridor, and grass snake exclusively along the western boundary adjacent
to Amersham Road. It also notes ‘…… although the Main [appeal] Site is
c.23.39ha, suitable reptile habitat, comprising tussocky grassland, scrub and field
margins, account for less than one hectare within the Site’. These findings confirm
the primary importance of field margins and the woodland belt.
139. The summary section in the report of survey, which informs the mitigation
strategy, goes on to say: ‘new habitat provision at the site should include tall
grassland, scrub, wildlife ponds and log piles in order to continue offering suitable
opportunities for foraging, sheltering and dispersing reptiles. The central wooded
corridor creates a significant area of connecting habitat around which new habitat
could be focused’.
140. The ensuing Reptile Mitigation Strategy34 admits: ‘the proposed development
will result in the loss of suitable reptile habitat …… for the most part, development
will be located within areas of existing agricultural land with low suitability for reptile
species …… small areas of reptile habitat at the Site will be brought under different
management to provide shorter-sward grassland within areas of open space. The
loss of these small areas will be mitigated by new habitat such as rank grassland, in
strategic areas of the Site’.
32 It is common ground that given the proximity of populations and older records there was potential for common
lizard to be found on the site
33 CD 4.33 ES Addendum – Appendix 5 – ES Appendix 14.10 Reptile Survey
34 Appellant’s Ecological Matters Appendix A
141. Turning to the avoidance and mitigation strategy, a number of areas are
listed as requiring sensitive clearance. I acknowledge that the connecting
point for the road linking the two parts of the site has been chosen to
minimise vegetation loss. However, the route would not only physically sever
natural linkage between the areas identified as Woodland 1 (in the north-
eastern part of the site) and Woodland 2 (in the centre of the site) but also
introduce significant vehicular and pedestrian activity.
142. Moreover, I note from the illustrative Masterplan the intention to provide a
Natural Play Area to the east of Woodland 1, woodland walks, and an access
road parallel to, but separated by a landscaped margin, on the western side
of the woodland. In my opinion, there is every prospect that these elements
would compound the adverse effects of disconnection.
143. Additionally, the provision of a Neighbourhood Equipped Play Area between
Woodland 2 and treeline B4, and a Natural Play Area to the west of that tree
line, would introduce a nucleus of human activity. Moreover, Woodland 2
would be transformed into a Woodland Park with a proposed connecting
pedestrian route into and through Woodland 3 (in the south-western part of
the site).
144. Whilst the illustrative Landscaping Strategy35 indicates, with reference to the
new pedestrian routes, that ‘this approach will allow connectivity through these
areas ……’, I consider that intensive recreational use by the future resident
population would conflict with the counterpart notion of ‘respecting the
majority of these areas for biodiversity’.
145. It is also relevant to note that the grassland margins along parts of the
southern and western boundaries of the site are shown to take the form of
usable ‘Amenity Greenspace’. In addition, part of the Amersham Road
frontage would become a ‘Green Gateway’ with a Locally Equipped Area for
Play.
146. Seen against these losses, the outline Woodland Management Plan36, for
Woodland 2, seeks to bring this area under favourable management to
counter high levels of informal recreation and anti-social behaviour which
has in turn deteriorated habitats. The works are intended to generally
increase botanical diversity and habitat structure in order to encourage
wildlife.
147. Outline objectives to deliver the overall vision of ensuring a thriving
woodland in perpetuity include, in summary: enhancing the woodland as an
important habitat in the wider landscape; maximising habitat connectivity to
the wider area; protecting the woodland edge as a valuable habitat; and
undertaking new woodland and thicket planting to increase diversity, new
habitats and connectivity.
148. Parallel objectives include the creation of a safe environment for sustainable
year round recreational use, through appropriate provision of paths,
defensive planting, benches, fencing, signage and litter bins. Secondary
benefits relate to health and well-being and an understanding of the
awareness of the woodland’s key contribution to the wider landscape fabric.
35 CD 1.82
36 CD 4.46 - to be read with the totality of the landscape and ecological evidence
149. In addition to the habitat measures expressly for Woodland 2, there would
be opportunities, as part of the overall landscaping scheme for the site, to
incorporate beneficial habitats. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the low reptile
species and populations, and measures to secure co-existence with human
activity, I consider that insufficient regard has been given to the beneficial
habitats of the reptile population. Consequently, the proposed development
would have an adverse effect on reptiles, with particular reference to
severance of habitat and the adjacency and concentration of recreational
activity.
(iii) Badgers
150. Surveys show that there is a known presence of badgers within the vicinity
of the site and the site is within their foraging range. Natural England’s
standing advice for a three part survey also calls for an estimate of territorial
boundaries. The latter is particularly important where initial surveys indicate
proximity of two main setts, which would in turn influence any mitigation
strategy. In my opinion, despite a high level of activity, the totality of the
evidence points convincingly to a single, off-site, main sett.
151. Turning to the proposed mitigation measures, in the Badger Strategy Plan,
although there is extensive off-site foraging habitat, the value currently
afforded by the appeal site would be diminished through the domestication
and disconnection of dispersal routes. Indeed, the Appellant acknowledges
that the outcome could be one of managed decline.
152. Although it is said that any readjustment would be in line with legislation,
Natural England’s guidance indicates: ‘where possible developments should
avoid effects on badgers. Where this is not possible, the developer will need to
include mitigation or compensation measures in their proposal’. Whilst I
acknowledge that the Eastern Relief Road will have had the likelihood of
isolating more distant foraging grounds, it is evident that the appeal
proposal would isolate, and have an adverse impact on, more immediate
foraging habitat.
153. Overall, notwithstanding the purpose of the relevant legislation, and the
manner in which badger populations can adapt to built development, the
Badger Strategy Plan fails to provide adequate mitigation for the likely
impacts of the development, contrary to Natural England’s standing advice.
(iv) Bats
154. The illustrative Masterplan provides for a road access from the Eastern Relief
Road, immediately north of the central woodland belt. The proposed new
road, and associated traffic, would introduce additional lighting at a point
where bat mitigation measures were secured as part of the relief road
construction. However, as surveys show low activity from rarer light-
avoiding species, and some additional mitigation is likely to be possible
through a bespoke lighting scheme secured by condition, I am satisfied that
the proposal would not have a material adverse effect on local bat
populations.
(v) Biodiversity Net Gain
155. Planning Practice Guidance: Natural Environment, alongside the Framework,
promotes the delivery of measurable Biodiversity Net Gain through the
creation and enhancement of habitats alongside development. It sets out a
hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and compensation.
156. In this instance, the appeal proposal retains and provides significant
multifunctional green infrastructure focusing on the main woodland asset of
the site. However, there would be a net loss of habitat units and off-site
land, within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area, would be utilised by way of
compensation to secure 45% Biodiversity Net Gain.
157. Although this approach ‘leapfrogs’ the hierarchy, such significant net gain
within the appeal site itself would not be achievable without a very
significant loss of potential dwellings. Considering Biodiversity Net Gain in
isolation, I am content that the balance struck in the particular
circumstances of this case justifies reliance on compensation.
(vi) Overall Analysis
158. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the proposal, with the mitigation
measures outlined, would not have adverse effects on European Protected
Sites and Species.
159. In terms of reptiles, I am content that surveys have provided an adequate
understanding to inform the mitigation strategy. However, that strategy, as
a consequence of the design approach, has material weaknesses in terms of
fragmentation of habitat and impacts of human activity.
160. Again, although there is a satisfactory assessment of badger activity, the
mitigation measures fall short of Natural England’s standing advice.
161. The balance of evidence on bats points to no material adverse effects.
162. On Biodiversity Net Gain, there would be a significant benefit associated with
the off-site measures proposed.
The fifth Main Issue:
Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be
clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special
circumstances required to justify the proposal
(i) Other considerations: Loss of agricultural land
163. The Environmental Statement records that some 25% of the site is Best and
Most Versatile Agricultural Land Grade 3a. It is an outlying area of the farm
business where management is limited by absence of water supply and the
difficulty of supervising livestock. It is a factor of very limited negative
weight.
(ii) Other considerations: Designated Heritage Assets
164. The south-western part of the site lies close to the Beaconsfield Old Town
Conservation Area and east of Grade II Listed Buildings at Wilton Park Farm.
The Conservation Area contains some 130 Listed Buildings of which 5 are
Grade II*.
165. The Appellant’s Heritage Assessment is not disputed by the Council or the
Beaconsfield Society. In general, land within the appeal site does not
contribute to the significance of the designated area or form part of the
setting within which it is experienced.
166. In terms of Wilton Park Farm, the buildings derive significance from their
historic interest as examples of 18th century farm buildings; and some of the
adjoining agricultural land has some historical association with the farm but
lacks intervisibility. Although the proposal would alter the wider area around
Wilton Park Farm, the harm would be negligible, at most, and at the
lowermost part of less than substantial harm.
167. The Framework indicates that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should
be given to the asset’s conservation’. In this case, I consider that the identified
harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme with
particular reference to the provision of new housing as quantified below.
(iii) Other considerations: Housing Land Supply
168. The Updated Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Supply37 sets
out the agreed base date for the 5-year housing land supply calculation for
the period 2021-2026 and an illustrative position for 2022-2027. Although
the Council and the Appellant reach different conclusions on the local
housing need using the standard method, the difference is marginal. So too
is that relating to the calculation of windfall sites. The principal dispute
relates to the deliverability of five sites. On the Council’s evidence, the
supply amounts to 2.81 years for 2021-2026 and 2.45 years for 2022-2027.
The Appellant’s position is 2.02 years and 1.64 years respectively.
Whichever figure is taken, the shortfall is agreed to be significant.
169. Of the disputed sites, the delivery attributed to Wilton Park relies on short
timescales for the submission of reserved matters and subsequent
implementation. To my mind, it has the real risk of being unduly optimistic.
The remaining four sites relate to office premises awaiting change to
residential use. However, there is nothing to suggest that delivery is realistic
having regard to one or more matters of timescales, on-going use,
marketing for office use and lack of tangible measures indicative of
implementation. Overall, I attach greater weight to the Appellant’s
assessment of the 5-year housing land supply.
(iv) Other considerations: Affordable Housing
170. I have considered the evidence of the Appellant as a whole which remained
unchallenged by the Council and the Beaconsfield Society. For the purpose of
this decision, I set out in summary form the key findings identified by the
Appellant:
(a). The UK has a chronic shortage of new housing; without new homes,
new affordable housing cannot be delivered; lack of affordable homes
adversely affects the economy, access to jobs, quality of life and health
and well-being.
(b). National and local policies recognise affordable housing as an important
material consideration; and South Bucks has increased its affordable
housing target from 20% to 40%.
(c). The Council’s recent Affordable Housing Position Statement recognises
the acute shortage of socially rented housing, affordable rent and
rented key worker accommodation.
37 Inquiry Document 14 dated 19 October 2022
(d). South Bucks is ranked 6th lowest in England for affordable housing
delivery over the 10 year period to 2019; and provision over a 15 year
period to 2020-2021 was 8% of all new homes delivered.
(e). The affordable housing shortage is acerbated by the acute affordability
issue locally – South Bucks households with a median and lower
quartile income, as of 2021, needed over 18 times their income to
afford a home – the Appellant’s research shows in Beaconsfield that
49% of households are priced out of the market – the outcome is social
imbalance.
(f). Current affordability issues are hampered by previous years of under
delivery of affordable housing; 6,629 households are on the Housing
Register and qualify for an affordable home in Buckinghamshire; those
on the register in South Bucks have to wait almost a year to access an
affordable home; the wait is 2.5 years for a 3-bedroom property; and
there are over 400 households in South Bucks with high housing needs
and over 3,000 households across Buckinghamshire.
(g). At 1 April 2022, 588 households with a local connection to
Buckinghamshire were classed as homeless.
(h). Only 135 new affordable homes are expected to be delivered in the
period to 2027 in South Bucks with detailed planning application data
reducing this to 94 units.
(i). The appeal site is the only site in South Bucks that plans to deliver 40%
affordable housing.
(j). The Appellant, taking account of all of the above factors, indicates that
very substantial weight should be given to the delivery of approximately
180 new affordable homes in accordance with current local policy.
171. Turning to the written representations made by Beaconsfield Town Council,
and the suggestion that it would be ‘more appropriate to examine the issue
through the lens of the emerging Local Plan’, the need for affordable housing is
immediate.
172. As to the nature of affordable housing, the bilateral Planning Obligations
would secure overall provision of 40% with a mix of First Homes, affordable
rented and shared ownership reflecting the Buckinghamshire Housing and
Economic Development Needs Assessment (update and addendum), Core
Policy 3 and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.
Although affordable homes are to be delivered at Wilton Park, and elsewhere
in the wider successor unitary authority, there is nothing of sufficient
substance to undermine the Appellant’s evidence on the need to secure
affordable housing locally.
(v) Other considerations: Self-build housing
173. The proposal makes provision for 22 self-build plots in a District where there
is currently no provision. Although it was suggested that windfall sites could
contribute towards meeting demand, such sites do not constitute ‘suitable
serviced plots’.
(vi) Other considerations: Employment and the Local Economy
174. The Design and Access Statement summarises the direct and indirect job
opportunities arising from the proposed development and indicative resident
local spend which weigh in favour of the proposal.
(vii) Other considerations: Social Infrastructure
175. The proposed development would secure, amongst other things, a local
centre, a community building, green infrastructure and playing pitch
facilities. All of these are components of promoting healthy and safe
communities as set out in chapter 8 of the Framework.
176. The reservation of land for education, although intended with foresight of
potential development needs in the locality, is not supported by current
educational needs.
Other representations
177. The application for planning permission, and the subsequent appeal,
generated a considerable number of representations from, or on behalf of,
the local community. I have not addressed all of the objections raised as
many of the points do not reflect the main issues that I have identified and
considered in some detail.
178. In addition, some were of a generalised nature which provided no real basis
to undermine the technical evidence in the Environmental Statement and its
Addendum; or were, or could be, met by Statements of Common Ground,
Planning Obligations, draft planning conditions and other documents before
the Inquiry.
179. In terms of the representations pointing to the increasing vacancy rate of
employment sites, and their potential to provide housing, some may yet
make a contribution to increasing the available housing stock. Whilst sites of
this nature offer the advantage of repurposing brownfield land, such
opportunities are likely to be but one aspect of significantly boosting the
supply of homes of sufficient variety to address the different needs of the
community in terms of size, type and tenure.
The overall planning balance
180. On the first main issue, it is common ground that the proposal would be
inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In addition, the Council does
not dispute the principle of residential development against the background
of the evidence base for the withdrawn Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan.
The evidence base leading to the promotion of the site is a strong material
consideration of significant weight. However, I do not attach any weight to
the withdrawn local plan insofar as it was not subject to detailed
examination, due to a preliminary procedural shortcoming.
181. There is no dispute that the development plan is significantly out-of-date and
that it does not provide any current basis for meeting substantially changed
housing needs. There is also no immediate remedy as there is no prospect of
an up-to-date local plan before 2026. Suitable and available previously
developed land is also in short supply and some green field release appears
to be an inevitable consequence.
182. It is also agreed that the appeal proposal would cause a loss of openness in
spatial and visual terms. My analysis shows that the Green Belt purpose of
checking unrestricted sprawl would be undermined, but only to a limited
degree, given the site’s physical boundaries. There would, of course, be
conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment which is a factor of significant negative weight.
183. As to the second main issue, the degree of harm was analysed carefully in
the earlier evidence base and my own assessment confirms that the principle
of residential development on the appeal site would not result in significant
landscape effects on the wider landscape character area. I also found that
the visual envelope of the site to be modest, and I reached the conclusion
that residential development need not have significant adverse visual
impacts.
184. Turning to the third main issue, I have identified material shortcomings in
the design approach, insofar as it relates to the context of the site with
particular reference to the wider landscape and the interface with Minerva
Way and the Eastern Relief Road. The height parameters of the local centre,
in particular, would compound adverse impacts on the countryside edge of
the site and its landscape setting. This merits significant negative weight.
185. On the fourth main issue, implicated by the overall design vision, established
habitats would become fragmented and also compromised by recreational
activity. Again, significant negative weight attaches.
186. In terms of the fifth main issue, leading to the final planning balance and the
consideration of the most important development plan policies related to the
main issues, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy GB1 of the Local
Plan. Although the policy lacks the balancing requirement of the Framework
(‘except in very special circumstances’), it would nonetheless be admissible to
balance other considerations38.
187. Additionally, notwithstanding the Appellant’s claim that the Green Belt
boundaries are out-of-date, and the policy should attach no weight, it is not
disputed that the appeal site is located in the Green Belt, as defined, and the
proposal is inappropriate development. Paragraph 147 of the Framework is
thus engaged and is a material consideration in planning decisions. To my
mind, in the round, there is nothing to undermine the status of Policy GB1.
188. The Framework confirms: ‘inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to
the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure
that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt’.
189. In addition to the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness,
further harm arises from the combination of landscape impacts, design and
habitat issues as set out above.
190. The proposal would be at odds with Local Plan Policies EP3 and H9, where
development should be compatible with its surroundings, and the related
aim of paragraph 130 c) of the Framework. However, unlike the latter,
neither policy admits ‘appropriate innovation or change (such as increased
densities)’.
38 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: ‘If regard is to be had to the development
plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be
made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’
191. Further, I see no fundamental contradiction between H9 and Government
policy in seeking to make full and effective use of land. In addition,
qualification by reference to other policies in the plan, that themselves may
be incompatible with the Framework, does not render H9 inconsistent, in
that the Framework ‘should be read as a whole’. Overall, I apply limited
negative weight to the conflict with each of these policies.
192. Policy EP4, read as a whole, has similar thrust to paragraph 130 b) of the
Framework in seeking to achieve appropriate and effective landscaping. In
relation to the retention of important landscape elements that contribute to
the character and appearance of the site, the proposal can be said to be in
accordance with EP4(b). However, in terms of the scheme’s failure to ensure
a ‘landscape-led’ approach following a clear understanding of context, the
National Design Guide and the Framework provide more direct policy related
considerations.
193. As for Core Policy 9, there would be no adverse impacts on the Chilterns
AONB; and the integrity of Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation
would be safeguarded through the relevant mitigation strategy. As such,
there would be no material conflict with this part of the policy.
194. In more general terms, the policy seeks to conserve and enhance the
landscape characteristics and biodiversity resources within South Bucks by,
in summary, not permitting new development that would harm landscape
character or nature conservation interests, unless outweighed by other
considerations. It also seeks enhancement and net gain in local biodiversity
within the Biodiversity Opportunity Areas which would be met by the
proposal.
195. Whilst acknowledging that part of the policy, relating to the availability of a
less harmful alternative site39, is inconsistent with the Framework, Core
Policy 9 is multi-faceted and the degree of compliance pulls in opposite
directions. Nonetheless, the extent to which there is conflict, related to
landscape and biodiversity issues, merits significant negative weight.
196. There are a number of other policies40, from the Local Plan and Core
Strategy with which there would be no material conflict, or fulfilment secured
by conditions and the bilateral Planning Obligations. Indeed, the proposal
would comply with CP3 which requires the provision of 40% affordable
housing. Although policy compliant, that benefit merits very significant
positive weight. So too does the provision of market housing in the
circumstances already described. Self-build housing as a contribution to
boosting the supply and range of dwellings is a consideration of moderate
positive weight, proportionate to the number of plots proposed.
197. At this point, recapping on the need for market and affordable housing as a
principal component of the planning balance, the Framework outlines the
Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes with
particular emphasis on up-to-date local plans.
39 Extract: ‘Not permitting new development that would harm landscape character or nature conservation
interests, unless the importance of the development outweighs the harm caused, the Council is satisfied that
the development cannot reasonably be located on an alternative site that would result in less or no harm and
appropriate mitigation or compensation is provided, resulting in a net gain in Biodiversity.’
40 Including, amongst others, Policy COM1 which encourages the provision of community facilities (subject to
criteria) and Core Policy CP7 in terms of accessibility and transport
198. Here the development plan is woefully out-of-date; housing requirements
have greatly increased; affordability has plummeted; and there is no
prospect of an early remedy through an up-to-date local plan. The benefits
in securing a significant supply of both market and affordable homes through
the appeal scheme is beyond doubt.
199. Moreover, given the extent of the Green Belt within South Bucks, it has been
recognised that such land would need to be considered in order to meet the
acute housing need. The appeal site has the advantage of being well-
contained with landscape and visual effects localised. As a green field site,
its sustainability credentials, in terms of accessibility to facilities and public
transport, cannot be belittled.
200. Other principal benefits include the significant biodiversity net gain, in a
Biodiversity Enhancement Area, reflecting the objectives of Core Policy 9 and
paragraph 179 b) of the Framework. This merits significant positive weight.
201. Although the appeal scheme would be supported by extensive green
infrastructure, community facilities and off-site playing pitches to meet the
needs of the development, there would be some wider community benefits
attracting moderate weight. The economic benefits arising from construction
and subsequent occupation of the dwellings are also of significant positive
weight.
202. In the final analysis, I acknowledge that there are very important material
factors which support the proposed development. However, the scheme as a
whole has noteworthy drawbacks. On this basis, I conclude that the harm to
the Green Belt, and the other harm which I have identified, would not be
clearly outweighed by other considerations and that very special
circumstances do not exist.
203. As to the development plan, there is a limited basket of policies that go to
the heart of the main issues and varying degrees of conflict as described. As
a matter of balance, the proposal fulfils other policy requirements.
Nonetheless, I have found that there would be conflict with the development
plan when read as a whole.
204. Moreover, taking paragraph 148 of the Framework, in combination with
other elements of national policy and guidance, I also find that the proposal
would be in conflict with the Framework when read as a whole.
205. I shall, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
David MH Rose
Inspector
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
For [APPELLANT]
Christopher Young KC and Instructed by Michael Davies, Savills
Thea Osmund-Smith of Counsel
They called
Ben Pycroft Director
BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI Emery Planning
Dr Aidan Marsh Director
BSc PhD CEcol CEnv MCIEEM CSA Environmental
Chris Odgers Director
MRTPI BA(Hons) DipUD DipUP Savills
Clive Self Managing Director
MA(Urb Des) Dip LA CMLI CSA Environmental
Michael Davies Director
BSc(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI AIEMA Savills
For Buckinghamshire Council
Simon Bird KC Instructed by Laura Lee Briggs
Solicitor Advocate to the Council
He called
Yuen Wong Principal Planning Officer
BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
Agni-Louiza Arampoglou Ecology Officer
BSc(Hons) MSc ACIEEMI
Chris Kennett Urban Designer and Landscape Architect
BSc DipLA CMLI PDip Urban Design
MSc Sustainable Development
John Fannon Town Planning Consultant
MRUP MSc MRTPI
For The Beaconsfield Society
Paul Shadarevian KC Instructed by The Beaconsfield Society
He called
Simon Neesam Director
BA(Hons) DipLA CMLI The Landscape Partnership
Rosanna Metcalfe Associate Director
BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI Lambert Smith Hampton
INTERESTED PERSONS
Dennis Elsey Local Resident
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ROUND TABLE SESSION ON
CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
David Frisby Director
BEng (CEng) FCIHT Mode Transport
Anthony McNamee Solicitor
Senior Associate, Farrer & Co
Laura Lee Briggs Solicitor Advocate to the Council
ANNEX B: DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
1. Email exchange re highway matters 17 October 2022
2. Appellant’s Opening Statement
3. LPA Opening Statement
4. Beaconsfield Society Opening Statement
5. Wilton Park Phasing Plan at A3
6. Natural England: Reptiles – advice for making planning decisions
7. Herpetofauna Groups of England and Ireland Advisory Notes – Reptile
Groups
8. E-mails relating to Natural England’s Statement of Case
9. Update on Highways e-mail 20 October 2022
10. Approved Details for Minerva Way under Wilton Park permission
11. Screening opinion request for increased densities at Wilton Park
12. Mode Technical Note 21 October 2022
13. Delegated Report for approval of Wilton Park reserved matters with plan
14. Updated Housing Statement of Common Ground 19 October 2022
15. Buckinghamshire Council to Local Plan Inspectors dated 12 May 2020
16. E-mail on schools’ catchments with plan of educational planning area
17. Appellant’s Note on Hyde Farm
18. Appellant’s Note on Business Parks and Industrial Estates
19. Report to the Council’s Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee
on Local Plan timetable 6 October 2022
20. Plan showing relationship of Holtspur School to the Appeal Site
21. Wilton Park Newsletter June 2022
22. National Highways No Objection response 14 November 2022
23. Highways Statement of Common Ground 28 October 2022 and covering e-
mail 3 November 2022
24. a) Buckinghamshire Council email to PINS removing air quality reason for
refusal (8 November 2022)
b) EHO response on updated Air Quality Assessment
25. Chiltern and South Bucks CIL Charging Schedule
26. Chiltern and South Bucks Annual CIL Rate Summary 2021
27. Final Draft Planning Conditions (v17)
28. The Council’s Closing Submissions and Legal Authorities
29. The Beaconsfield Society’s Closing Submissions
30. The Appellant’s Closing Submissions
31. Bilateral Deed of Planning Obligations dated 25 November 2022
32. Unilateral Planning Obligation dated
33. CIL Compliance Schedule
34. CSB Annual CIL rate summary 2022
35. Education s106 Guidance on Planning Obligations for Education Provision
(revised November 2021)
36. Site 11 A40 London End/A355 Park Lane roundabout monitoring installation
cost estimate
Other documents recorded by Inspector
a) Email from D Elsey 4 November 2022
b) Email (7 November 2022) attaching and clarifying final version of
representations by Beaconsfield Town Council (July 2022)
Beeches Park, Beaconsfield - Core Document Index List
Reference DOCUMENT TITLE DATE
Number ADOPTED/
PUBLISHED/
SUBMITTED
CD1 Planning Application Documents and Plans
1.1 Application Form 4 August 2021
1.2 CIL Additional Questions Form 4 August 2021
1.3 Certificate B Notice 4 August 2021
1.4 Red Line Plan (Drawing number PAB01) 4 August 2021
1.5 Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing number 406339) 4 August 2021
1.6 Open Space Typologies Plan (Drawing number CSA/3484/141) 4 August 2021
1.7 Illustrative Section Plan 1 of 2 4 August 2021
1.8 Illustrative Section Plan 2 of 2 4 August 2021
1.9 Planning Application Covering Letter 4 August 2021
1.10 Planning Statement 4 August 2021
1.11 Planning Statement Appendices 4 August 2021
1.12 Design and Access Statement 4 August 2021
1.13 Retail Statement 4 August 2021
1.14 Affordable Housing Statement (superseded) 4 August 2021
1.15 BC Affordable Housing Form 4 August 2021
1.16 Community Needs Assessment 4 August 2021
1.17 Draft S106 Agreement (superseded) 4 August 2021
1.18 S106 Agreement - Title Plan – BM61951 4 August 2021
1.19 S106 Agreement - Title Register – BM61951 4 August 2021
1.20 Ecology and Trees Checklist 4 August 2021
1.21 Foul Water and Utilities Assessment 2018 (superseded) 4 August 2021
1.22 Environmental Impact Assessment – Volume 1a (Main 4 August 2021
Statement)
1.23 Environmental Impact Assessment – Non-Technical Summary 4 August 2021
1.24 ES Volume 1b - Covers and Contents Page 4 August 2021
1.25 Figure 1.1: Application Site Boundary (Drawing number 4 August 2021
PAB01)
1.26 Figure 1.2: Assessment Area Boundary (Drawing number 4 August 2021
EAB01)
1.27 Figure 3.1: Illustrative Concept Masterplan (Drawing number 4 August 2021
406339)
1.28 Figure 3.2: Land Use Parameter Plan (Drawing number 4 August 2021
LUPP01)
1.29 Figure 3.3: Building Heights Parameter Plan (Drawing number 4 August 2021
BHPP01)
1.30 Figure 3.4: Access & Circulation Parameter Plan (Drawing 4 August 2021
number ACPP01v2)
1.31 Figure 3.5: Residential Density Parameter Plan (Drawing 4 August 2021
number DPP01)
1.32 Figure 3.6: Green & Blue Infrastructure Parameter Plan 4 August 2021
(Drawing number GBPP01v2)
1.33 Figures 3.7 – 3.10: Illustrative Phasing Plans (Drawing number 4 August 2021
PAB01)
1.34 Figure 7.1: Walkable and Secondary Impact Areas (See CD 4 August 2021
1.22- Chapter 7)
1.35 Figure 7.2: Population Change 2011-2020 (See CD 1.22 - 4 August 2021
Chapter 7)
1.36 Figure 7.3: South Bucks Population Projection 2020-2043 (See 4 August 2021
CD 1.22- Chapter 7)
1.37 Figure 7.4: South Bucks Age Structure (See CD 1.22- Chapter 4 August 2021
7)
1.38 Figure 7.5: Population Growth by Age Group 2020-2043 (See 4 August 2021
CD 1.22- Chapter 7)
1.39 Figure 7.6: Qualification Profile (See CD 1.22- Chapter 7) 4 August 2021
1.40 Figure 7.7: Workplace-based industrial structure by occupation 4 August 2021
(2011) (See CD 1.22- Chapter 7)
1.41 Figure 7.8: Employment by Sector in South Bucks (See CD 4 August 2021
1.22- Chapter 7)
1.42 Figure 7.9: Net annual household income Heat Map (See CD 4 August 2021
1.22- Chapter 7)
1.43 Figure 7.10: Household delivery Vs Target (See CD 1.22 - 4 August 2021
Chapter 7)
1.44 Figure 7.11: IMD in 2015 compared to 2019 in LOSA 001E 4 August 2021
(See CD 1.22- Chapter 7)
1.45 Figure 7.12: Pre-school Provision (See CD 1.22- Chapter 7) 4 August 2021
1.46 Figure 7.13: Local Primary School Provision (See CD 1.22- 4 August 2021
Chapter )
1.47 Figure 7.14: Local Secondary Schools (See CD 1.22- Chapter 4 August 2021
7)
1.48 Figure 7.15: Local GP Practices (See CD 1.22- Chapter 7) 4 August 2021
1.49 Figure 7.16: Local Dental Provision (See CD 1.22- Chapter 7) 4 August 2021
1.50 Figure 7.17: Local Open and play Spaces (See CD 1.22 - 4 August 2021
Chapter 7)
1.51 Figure 12.1: EIA Assessment Area 4 August 2021
1.52 Figure 12.2: Noise monitoring Locations 4 August 2021
1.53 Figure 12.3: Assessment Receptors 4 August 2021
1.54 Figure 12.4: External Amenity Areas without Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.55 Figure 12.5: External Amenity Areas with Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.56 Figure 12.6: School Noise Contours without Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.57 Figure 12.7: School Noise Contours with Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.58 Figure 12.8: Daytime Noise Contours without Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.59 Figure 12.9: Daytime Noise Contours with Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.60 Figure 12.10: Night-time Noise Contours without Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.61 Figure 12.11: Night-time Noise Contours with Relief Road 4 August 2021
1.62 Figure 12.12: Night-time Maximum Noise Contours without 4 August 2021
Relief Road
1.63 Figure 12.13: Night-time Maximum Noise Contours with Relief 4 August 2021
Road
1.64 Figure 13.1: Receptors 4 August 2021
1.65 Figure 13.2: AQMA 4 August 2021
1.66 Figure 13.3: Local Authority Monitoring Locations 4 August 2021
1.67 Figure 13.4: Construction Dusk Risk Buffers 4 August 2021
1.68 Figure 13.5: Trackout Dust Risk Buffers 4 August 2021
1.69 Figure 13.6: Wind Rose Heathrow 2019 4 August 2021
1.70 Figure 15.1: Assessment Area 4 August 2021
1.71 Figure 15.2: Aerial Photograph 4 August 2021
1.72 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 1 of 7 4 August 2021
1.73 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 2 of 7 4 August 2021
1.74 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 3 of 7 4 August 2021
1.75 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 4 of 7 4 August 2021
1.76 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 5 of 7 4 August 2021
1.77 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 6 of 7 4 August 2021
1.78 Figure 15.3: Photosheets Part 7 of 7 4 August 2021
1.79 Figure 15.4: Magic Map 4 August 2021
1.80 Figure 15.5: Existing ZTV 4 August 2021
1.81 Figure 15.6: Proposed ZTV 4 August 2021
1.82 Figure 15.7: Landscape Strategy 4 August 2021
1.83 Figure 15.8: Visualisations 4 August 2021
1.84 Environmental Impact Assessment – Volume 2 (Appendices) 4 August 2021
and Cover and Contents
1.85 Appendix 1.1: Glossary of Abbreviations 4 August 2021
1.86 Appendix 3.1: Outline Solid Waste Management Strategy 4 August 2021
1.87 Appendix 5.1: Agricultural Land Classification 4 August 2021
1.88 Appendix 5.2: Climate Change EIA Briefing Note 4 August 2021
1.89 Appendix 7.1: Rapid Health Impact Assessment 4 August 2021
1.90 Appendix 8.1: Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Part 1 4 August 2021
of 3
1.91 Appendix 8.1: Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Part 2 4 August 2021
of 3
1.92 Appendix 8.1: Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Part 3 4 August 2021
of 3
1.93 Appendix 8.2: Geo-Environmental Site Investigation & 4 August 2021
Assessment
1.94 Appendix 8.3: Minerals Assessment 4 August 2021
1.95 Appendix 9.1: Heritage Assessment 4 August 2021
1.96 Appendix 10.1: Flood Risk Assessment 4 August 2021
1.97 Appendix 10.2: Sustainable Drainage Statement Part 1 of 2 4 August 2021
1.98 Appendix 10.2: Sustainable Drainage Statement Part 2 of 2 4 August 2021
1.99 ES Appendix 11.1: Transport Assessment 4 August 2021
1.100 ES Appendix 11.2: Framework Travel Plan 4 August 2021
1.101 ES Appendix 11.3: ES Study Area Diagram 4 August 2021
1.102 ES Appendix 11.4: Link Sensitivity Assessment 4 August 2021
1.103 ES Appendix 11.5: Future Baseline Traffic 2031 (with ERR) 4 August 2021
1.104 ES Appendix 11.6: Future Baseline Traffic 2031 (without ERR) 4 August 2021
1.105 ES Appendix 11.7: Future Baseline Traffic 2027 (with ERR) 4 August 2021
1.106 ES Appendix 11.8: Future Baseline Traffic 2027 (without ERR) 4 August 2021
1.107 ES Appendix 11.9: Construction Traffic Calculations and 4 August 2021
Proposed HGV Routes
1.108 ES Appendix 11.10: Construction Screening – 2027 with ERR 4 August 2021
1.109 ES Appendix 11.11: Construction Screening – 2027 without 4 August 2021
ERR
1.110 ES Appendix 11.12: Development Traffic – with ERR 4 August 2021
1.111 ES Appendix 11.13: Development Traffic – without ERR 4 August 2021
1.112 ES Appendix 11.14: Occupation Screening – 2031 with ERR 4 August 2021
1.113 ES Appendix 11.15: Occupation Screening 2031 without ERR 4 August 2021
1.114 ES Appendix 11.16: Severance Calculations 4 August 2021
1.115 ES Appendix 11.17:Pedestrian Delay Calculations 4 August 2021
1.116 ES Appendix 11.18: Fear & Intimidation Calculations 4 August 2021
1.117 Appendix 12.1: Monitoring Details 4 August 2021
1.118 Appendix 12.2: Baseline Monitoring Data 4 August 2021
1.119 Appendix 12.3: Noise Model Validation 4 August 2021
1.120 Appendix 13.1: EPUK and IAQM 2017 Air Quality Planning 4 August 2021
Guidance
1.121 Appendix 13.2: IAQM 2016 Construction Dust Risk Assessment 4 August 2021
1.122 Appendix 13.3: Model Verification 4 August 2021
1.123 Appendix 13.4: General Construction Mitigation 4 August 2021
1.124 Appendix 14.1: Desktop Study and Habitats Information; 4 August 2021
1.125 Appendix 14.2: Legislation, Policy and Guidance; 4 August 2021
1.126 Appendix 14.3: Bat Survey Report 2019 (CSA/3484/09); 4 August 2021
1.127 Appendix 14.4: Bat Survey Report 2021; 4 August 2021
1.128 Appendix 14.5: Badger Survey Report 2021; 4 August 2021
1.129 Appendix 14.6: Dormouse Survey Report 2019 4 August 2021
(CSA/3484/13);
1.130 Appendix 14.7: Breeding Bird Survey Report 2019 4 August 2021
(CSA/3484/10);
1.131 Appendix 14.8: Breeding Bird Survey Report 2021; 4 August 2021
1.132 Appendix 14.9: Reptile Survey Report 2019 (CSA/3484/11); 4 August 2021
1.133 Appendix 14.10: Reptile Survey Report 2021; 4 August 2021
1.134 Appendix 14.11: Great Crested Newt Survey Report 2019 4 August 2021
(CSA/3484/12);
1.135 Appendix 14.12: Great Crested Newt Survey Report 2021; and 4 August 2021
1.136 Appendix 14.13: Badger Survey Report 2019 4 August 2021
1.137 Appendix 15.1: CSA Methodology Tables 4 August 2021
1.138 Appendix 15.2: Extracts South Bucks Landscape Character 4 August 2021
Assessment
1.139 Appendix 15.3: Extracts Chiltern and South Bucks Landscape 4 August 2021
Capacity Assessment
1.140 Appendix 15.4: Arboricultural Impact Assessment 4 August 2021
1.141 Appendix 16.1: Energy and Sustainability Statement 4 August 2021
CD2 Planning Application Documents submitted after
validation
2.1 Consultation Comments and Applicant Responses Schedule 5 November
(November 2021) 2021
2.2 First ES Addendum Covering Letter 5 November
2021
2.3 Utilities Assessment 2021 10 November
2021
2.4 Second ES Addendum Covering Letter 15 November
2021
CD3 Committee Report and Decision Notice
3.1 Outline Planning Application Committee Report (including 25 November
appendices) 2021
3.2 Outline Planning Application Decision Notice 29 November
2021
3.3 Minutes of Minutes of Strategic Sites Planning Committee 25 November
2021
CD4 Appellant Appeal Submission Documents
4.1 Appeal Form 26 May 2022
4.2 Appeal Ownership Certificate B 26 May 2022
4.3 Appellant’s Statement of Case and Appendices (listed below as 26 May 2022
separate CDs)
4.4 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix A – Pre Notification 26 May 2022
of Appeal
4.5 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix B – Wider 26 May 2022
Ownership Plan
4.6 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix C – Relief Road 26 May 2022
Committee Report January 2017
4.7 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix D – BC Response to 26 May 2022
Addendums
4.8 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix E – Appellant EoT 26 May 2022
Letter
4.9 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix F - BC Response to 26 May 2022
EoT Letter
4.10 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix G – Statement of 26 May 2022
Consultation
4.11 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix H – Gross & Net 26 May 2022
Residential Area Plans
4.12 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix I - Mode Letter to 26 May 2022
Bucks Highways
4.13 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix J – BC Highways 26 May 2022
Response to TA Addendum
4.14 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix K – Bucks email to 26 May 2022
Mode Transport
4.15 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix L – Burnham 26 May 2022
Beeches SAC SoCG with BC
4.16 Appellant’s Statement of Case – Appendix M – Sport England 26 May 2022
Updated Consultee Response
4.17 Draft Statement of Common Ground 26 May 2022
4.18 Updated Draft S106 Agreement (Version 2) 26 May 2022
4.19 Strategic Design Code Part 1 of 2 26 May 2022
4.20 Strategic Design Code Part 2 of 2 26 May 2022
4.21 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 1 of 6
4.22 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 2 of 6
4.23 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 3 of 6
4.24 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 4 of 6
4.25 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 5 of 6
4.26 Updated Affordable Housing Statement (Version 2) and 26 May 2022
Appendices A – E Part 6 of 6
4.27 Minerva Way Supporting Statement 26 May 2022
4.28 ES Addendum - Main Statement 26 May 2022
4.29 ES Addendum – Appendix 1 Environmental Information 26 May 2022
Schedule
4.30 ES Addendum – Appendix 2 – Transport Statement Addendum 26 May 2022
4.31 ES Addendum – Appendix 3 – FRA and Sustainable Drainage 26 May 2022
Statement Addendum Part 1 of 3
4.32 ES Addendum – Appendix 4 – 2021 ES Addendum Chapter 14 26 May 2022
Ecology
4.33 ES Addendum – Appendix 5 – ES Appendix 14.10 Reptile 26 May 2022
Survey
4.34 ES Addendum – Appendix 6 – ES Appendix 14.14 HRA 26 May 2022
Information
4.35 ES Addendum – Appendix 7 – ES Appendix 14.15 – Skylark 26 May 2022
Mitigation Strategy
4.36 ES Addendum – Appendix 8 – ES Appendix 16.2 – Energy 26 May 2022
Strategy Addendum
4.37 ES Addendum – Appendix 9 – Transport Consultation Trackers 26 May 2022
Part 1 of 3
4.38 ES Addendum – Appendix 9 – Transport Consultation Trackers 26 May 2022
Part 2 of 3
4.39 ES Addendum – Appendix 9 – Transport Consultation Trackers 26 May 2022
Part 3 of 3
4.40 ES Addendum – Appendix 10 – Ecology ES Addendum 2 26 May 2022
4.41 ES Addendum – Appendix 11 – Ecology 2022 Surveys Part 1 of 26 May 2022
3
4.42 ES Addendum – Appendix 11 – Ecology 2022 Surveys Part 2 of 26 May 2022
3
4.43 ES Addendum – Appendix 11 – Ecology 2022 Surveys Part 3 of 26 May 2022
3
4.44 ES Addendum – Appendix 12 – Updated BNG Plan (the BNG 26 May 2022
Metric Excel Spreadsheet issued to PINS via email 26 May
2022) Part 1 of 2
4.45 ES Addendum – Appendix 12 – Updated BNG Plan (the BNG 26 May 2022
Metric Excel Spreadsheet issued to PINS via email 26 May
2022) Part 2 of 2
4.46 ES Addendum – Appendix 13 – Woodland Management Plan 26 May 2022
4.47 ES Addendum – Appendix 14 – ES Addendum Chapter 16 26 May 2022
Climate Change
4.48 ES Addendum – Appendix 15 – Climate Change Non-Technical 26 May 2022
Summary
4.49 ES Addendum – Appendix 16 – Greenhouse Gas Technical 26 May 2022
Note and Energy Efficiency Comparison Part 1 of 2
4.50 ES Addendum – Appendix 16 – Greenhouse Gas Technical 26 May 2022
Note and Energy Efficiency Comparison Part 2 of 2
4.51 ES Addendum – Appendix 17 – Additional Viewpoint 26 May 2022
Photographs Part 1 of 2
4.52 ES Addendum – Appendix 17 – Additional Viewpoint 26 May 2022
Photographs Part 2 of 2
4.53 ESA Appendix 18 – BC Ecology Officer Consultee Response 26 May 2022
CD5 Appeal Documents
5.1 LPA Statement of Case 21 July 2022
5.2 Rule 6 Party Statement of Case 12 August 2022
5.3 Interested Party Responses 2 August 2022
CD6 Key Correspondence
6.1 Council Letter not accepting ES Addendum 17 November
2021
6.2 Appellant request for an Extension of Time 18 October
2021
6.3 Council response to Extension of Time 21 October
2021
6.4 PINS request for ES Addendum Consultation 19 July 2022
CD7 Adopted Development Plan
7.1 South Bucks Core Strategy February 2011
7.2 Saved Policies of the South Bucks District Local Plan March 1999
7.3 Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan July 2019
CD8 National Planning Policy and Guidance
8.1 National Planning Policy Framework July 2021
8.2 National Planning Practice Guidance June 2021
8.3 National Design Guide January 2021
8.4 National Design Code June 2021
8.5 Manual for Streets Department for Transport March 2007
8.6 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
8.7 Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG).
8.8 Froglife Advice Sheet 10 - Reptile Survey November 1999
8.9 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
8.10 Badgers: advice for making planning decisions - GOV.UK
(www.gov.uk)
8.11 Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
8.12 British Standard Institution (BSI) BS42020: Biodiversity – 2013
Code of Practice for planning and development
8.13 Natural England Biodiversity Metric 3.1 Auditing and April 2022
accounting for biodiversity User Guide
8.14(a) BS 8683:2021 Process for designing and implementing 2010
Biodiversity Net Gain 2010 – Specification
8.14(b) Making space for nature: a review of England's wildlife sites 2010
(2010)
8.15 The Natural England and Forestry Commission Standing Advice
(Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for
making planning decisions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk))
8.16 Department for Transport – Guidance on Transport March 2007
Assessment
8.17 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – CD109 Highway Link March 2020
Design
8.18 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – CD123 Geometric November 2021
design of at-grade priority and signal controlled junctions
8.19 GG101 – Introduction to the Design Manual for Roads and September
Bridges 2021
8.20 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – TA 79/99 Traffic May 1999
Capacity of Urban Roads
8.21 Local Transport Note 1/20 – Cycle Infrastructure Design July 2020
8.22 Building for Healthy Life – Homes England June 2020
CD9 Adopted and Emerging Supplementary Planning and
other Local Guidance
9.1 Burnham Beeches Special Conservation Area Strategic Access November 2020
Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) SPD
9.2 Buckinghamshire Council’s Biodiversity Net Gain July 2022
Supplementary Planning Document
9.3 South Bucks District Council Residential Design Guide SPD October 2008
9.4 South Bucks District Council Beaconsfield Old Town April 2008
Conservation Area Character Appraisal
9.5 Affordable Housing SPD July 2013
9.6 South Bucks District Landscape Character Assessment October 2011
9.7 Chiltern District Council Sustainable Construction and February 2015
Renewable Energy SPD
9.8 Local Transport Plan: Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 4 April 2016
9.9 Wilton Park Development Brief SPD March 2015
CD10 Withdrawn Local Plan and Supporting Evidence Base
10.1 Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan (Submission Version) June 2019
10.2 Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Proposed Changes to the April 2019
Adopted
Policies Maps
10.3 Statement of Consultation Submission September
2019
10.4 Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part 1 March 2016
10.5 Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Document October 2016
10.6 Green Belt Development Options Appraisal November 2017
10.7 Chiltern & South Bucks Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment, March 2018
Strategic Role of the Metropolitan Green Belt in Chiltern &
South Bucks
10.8(a) Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment Part 2 - Update April 2019
Report
10.8(b) Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment Part 2 – Vol 1 – April 2019
Recommended Areas
10.8(c) Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment Part 2 – Vol 2 - Reg April 2019
18 Built Area Extension Options
10.8(d) Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment Part 2 – Vol 3 – April 2019
Employment Areas of Search
10.9 Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Report May 2019
10.10 Sustainability Appraisal 2019 June 2019
10.11 Sustainability Appraisal 2019 Appendices June 2019
10.12 Chiltern and South Bucks Housing and Economic Needs April 2019
Assessment
10.13 South Bucks District Landscape Character Assessment October 2011
10.14(a) Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt Development November 2017
Options in the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan –
Main Report
10.14(b) Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt Development November 2017
Options in the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan –
Section B Appendices
10.14(c) Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt Development November 2017
Options in the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan –
Site 9 Land east of Beaconsfield
10.14(d) Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt Development November 2017
Options in the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan –
Comments on responses from NE and AONB Board
10.14(e) Landscape Capacity Assessment for Green Belt Development November 2017
Options in the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan –
Report amendments following responses from NE and AONB
10.15 Chiltern and South Bucks Townscape Character Study November 2017
CD11 Background Documents
11.1 Chiltern and South Bucks Economic Development Strategy: January 2017
Chiltern District Council & South Bucks District Council
11.2 South Bucks District Council Housing and Economic Land January 2020
Availability Assessment
11.3 Eastern Relief Road - SBDC Planning Committee Report January 2017
16/02283/CC
11.4 Eastern Relief Road - SBDC Planning Decision 16/02283/CC 27 January
2017
11.5 Eastern Relief Road – SBDC Planning Committee Report July 2017
17/00938/CC
11.6 Eastern Relief Road – SBDC Planning Decision 17/00938/CC 12 July 2017
11.7 Annual Monitoring Report 2020/21 July 2022
11.8 Strategic Housing Market Assessment July 2008
11.9 Chiltern and South Bucks Five Year Housing Land Supply April 2022
Position Statement
11.10 Chiltern and South Bucks Five Year Housing Land Supply April 2022
Position Statement – Appendix 1 South Bucks Category A sites
11.11 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, April 2013
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment, 3rd Edition
11.12 Natural England Landscape Character Area Profiles September
2014
11.13 Experian MMG3 Data 2020
11.14 Full Council Report to South Bucks District Council October 2020
recommending that the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan
2036 be withdrawn
11.15 Chiltern and South Bucks Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 2020
Charging Schedule
11.16 The Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2019 – 2024: Caring for 2019
the Chilterns forever and for everyone
11.17 Wilton Park Design Code, Adam Urbanism September
2017
11.18 Land east and south of Beaconsfield Concept Masterplan, January 2020
Thrive
11.19 Bioregional One Plan Living Framework – A Manual April 2018
11.20 State of Nature Report 2019
11.21 The Chiltern and South Bucks Town Centre Retail and Leisure July 2017
Study
11.22 Chiltern Conservation Board – Position Statement: June 2011
Development affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB (Rev
1)
CD12 Statements of Common Ground
12.1 LPA and Appellant Planning SoCG V8 21 July 2022
12.2 Rule 6 Party and Appellant SoCG 21 September
2022
12.3 Highways Statement of Common Ground 7 October 2022
12.4 Housing Statement of Common Ground 11 October
2022
12.5 LPA and Appellant Ecology Meeting Note 13 October
CD13 Case Management Documents (PINS)
13.1 Inspector’s Notes from CMC1 27 November
2022
13.2 Inspector’s Notes from CMC2 6 September
2022
CD14 Relevant Appeal Decisions
14.1 2197532 & 2197529 – Audlem Road, Nantwich appeal decision 15 July 2020
14.2 3227970 – Cox Green Road, Surrey appeal decision 16 September
2019
14.3 3284485 – Station Road, Stallbridge, N. Dorset appeal 20 June 2022
decision
14.4 3270721 – Westhampnett / North East Strategic Development 27 May 2022
Location, North of Madgwick Lane, Chichester appeal decision
14.5 3194926 – Woolpit appeal decision 28 September
2018
14.6 3169314 - Woburn Sands, Milton Keynes appeal decision 25 June 2020
14.7 2212671 – Darnhall School Lane appeal decision 4 November
2019
14.8 3180729 – Gleneagles Way, Hatfield Peveril appeal decision 8 July 2019
14.9 3216104 – Popes Lane, Sturry appeal decision 3 September
2019
14.10 3238460 – Great Torrington appeal decision 18 March 2020
14.11 3265861 – Sonning Common appeal decision 25 June 2021
14.12 3256877 – Winterfield Lane, East Malling appeal decision 22 March 2021
14.13 3292721 – Land off Spruce Close, Exeter appeal decision 25 August 2022
14.14 3286315 – Land to the West of Church Road, West Wittering 22 April 2022
appeal decision
14.15 3265926 - Roundhouse Farm, Land Off Bullens Green Lane, 14 June 2021
Colney Heath appeal decision
14.16 3280395 – Land between Haverhill Road and Hinton Way, 29 December
Stapleford, Cambridge appeal decision 2021
14.17 3290072 – Former Mollington Golf Course, Mollington appeal 12 July 2022
decision
14.18 3273701 – Land south of Heath Lane, Codicote appeal decision 28 September
2021
14.19 3272399 - Land at Leigh Road, Wimborne appeal decision 11 March 2022
CD15 Relevant Secretary of State Decisions
15.1
CD16 Relevant Judgements
16.1 Suffolk Coastal v Hopkins Homes [2017] UKSC 37 10 May 2017
16.2 Peel Investments v Secretary of State for Housing, 3 September
Communities & Local Government [2020] EWCA Civ 1175’ 2020
16.3 Keep Bourne End Green v Buckinghamshire Council and DCLG 23 July 2020
[2020] EWHC