Agenda and minutes

To receive any disclosure of disclosable pecuniary interests by Members relating to items on the agenda. If any Member is uncertain as to whether an interest should be disclosed, he or she is asked if possible to contact the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting.

Members are reminded that if they are declaring an interest they should state the nature of that interest whether or not they are required to withdraw from the meeting.

Councillor S Raja: Application number 21/05794/FUL. Declared he had a personal interest due to a family member living next door to the application site. He declared he would speak as a Ward Member and then leave the Chamber for the debate and voting on the application.

Councillor M Turner: Application number 21/08160/FUL. Declared that he was a Ward Member but that he had an open mind and would listen to the debate and would make a decision at the conclusion of the debate.

Councillor P Turner: Application number 20/08349/FUL. Declared a personal interest in the application and declared that he would vacate the Chamber for the duration of the debate and voting on the application.

Councillor K Wood: Application number 20/08349/FUL. Declared an interest due to being a Member of the Board for the Almshouses which were located next door to the site. She declared that she had an open mind, would listen to the debate and make a decision at the conclusion of the debate.

To note the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2022 were agreed as an accurate record.

Erection of a retail unit for use as supermarket (Class E) and erection of restaurant / takeaway unit with drive thru (sui generis) with associated access, car parking and hard/soft landscaping.

The application was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting pending further clarification.

Demolition of existing shops and ancillary residential and erection of 3 x 2 and 4 x 1 bed flats with ground floor shop served by new access, bin store and cycle store.

After a full debate, Members voted on the motion to approve the application in line with officer’s recommendation.

Speaking as Ward Councillor: Councillor Steve Guy

Speaking in objection: Mr Ben Holkham

Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Mr Richard Clark

It was proposed by Councillor N Marshall and seconded by Councillor K Wood

            Resolved: that the application be approved.

Councillor P Turner left the Chamber for the duration of the debate due to having declared an interest.

Construction of two storey rear extension to lower ground and ground floor with associated alterations and alterations to roof in connection with conversion of existing RAF Association Club to form 7 x 1-bed flats (with 4 x parking spaces, bicycle storage and refuse facilities), plus construction of detached single storey building for wider community use at rear (part retrospective).

This application was the subject of a site visit.

Members voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1.        In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the principle of residential development is not acceptable. The existing building is a designated asset of community value. The loss of an asset of community value will only be considered acceptable if a community needs assessment for the building has been undertaken and where it can be demonstrated that the need for a community asset/facility no longer exists in this location. No such assessment has been submitted with the application and, whilst a replacement community facility has been included as part of the development proposal, insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the new building, which is smaller in scale than existing facility, would off-set the loss of the existing asset of community value. The proposal is therefore in conflict with the aims and objectives of policy DM29 of the Adopted Wycombe District Local Plan (August 2019), the Community Facilities SPD (October 2011) and the Community Facilities Strategy - May 2009 (updated August 2011 and March 2014).

2.        In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the works already undertaken have resulted in unduly dominant additions to the existing building, failing to be subservient to the existing property.  Together with the new building, which would also be constructed on site as part of this scheme, the overall proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site.  As such, the development would appear incongruous and be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.  This conflicts with policies DM35 and DM36 of the Adopted Local Plan and the Householder Planning and design guidance SPD.

3.        In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed increase in bulk of the rear extension, by virtue of its height, depth and siting in relation to the neighbouring property would be unduly overbearing in appearance.  The additional flank windows and balconies would cause a loss of privacy to neighbours. Moreover, the introduction of a new community building would further increase activity on site, which in combination with the use of the flats, would create noise and disturbance for the neighbouring residents. As such the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties and conflicts with Policies DM36 of the Adopted Local Plan and the Householder Planning and design guidance SPD.

Speaking as Ward Councillors: Councillors T Green, A Hussain and S Raja

Speaking in objection: Mr S Head

Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Mr E Munir

It was proposed by Councillor P Turner and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Householder application for erection of detached garden room to rear with works to garden including new retaining walls, re-landscaping and alterations to levels, new boundary treatments and planting (part retrospective).

This application was the subject of a site visit.

Members voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application for the following reason:

·         In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed boundary fencing, by virtue of its height and siting in relation to the neighbouring property would be unduly overbearing in appearance.  As such the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of this neighbouring property and conflicts with Policy DM36 of the Adopted Local Plan and the Householder Planning and design guidance SPD.

Speaking as Ward Member: Councillor D Barnes

Speaking in objection: Mr J Barlow

Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Mr P Smith (agent) and Mr C Newell (applicant)

It was proposed by Councillor M Turner and seconded by Councillor C Oliver.

            Resolved: that the application be refused for the reason given above.

Construction of part single, part two storey side extensions to both elevations of Stuart Lodge, conversion of integral garage and other associated internal alterations in connection with change of use of existing building from offices (use Class E) to residential (use Class C3) comprising 3 x 2-bed flats and 2 x studio  flats (5 in total).

This application was the subject of a site visit.

Members voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application in line with officer’s recommendation.

Speaking as Ward Councillor: Councillor A Baughan

Speaking in objection: Ms L Yates

It was proposed by Councillor P Turner and seconded by Councillor I Hussain

            Resolved: that the application be refused.

Councillor A Baughan spoke as Ward Member and then vacated the Chamber for the duration of the debate and voting on the application.

Wednesday 25 May 2022 at 6.30pm.

Wednesday 25 May 2022 at 6.30pm.

To confirm members’ availability to undertake site visits on Tuesday 24 May 2022 if required.

          Resolved: that in the event it was necessary to arrange site visits on Tuesday 24 May 2022 in respect of the agenda for the meeting to be held on Wednesday 25 May 2022, the following Members ne invited to attend:

          Councillors: N Marshall, C Oliver, M Turner and P Turner