Planning Committee - Meeting Agenda

Monday 19th October 2026

Introduction
Agenda Items
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3

Introduction

AGENDA

YOU ARE SUMMONED TO ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON MONDAY 19 OCTOBER 2026 AT 7.30PM IN THE LIONEL RIGBY ROOM AT THE VILLAGE CENTRE, ROGERS LANE, STOKE POGES, SL2 4LP.

Julie Simmonds

Clerk

13 October 2026

Agenda Items

065/PL/26 Items by Members of Public Present.

The meeting is open to the public and press, and the first 15 minutes will be reserved, if required, for public comment on items on this agenda only.

066/PL/26 Apologies for Absence and Acceptance.

067/PL/26 Declarations of Interest

Members to declare any personal interest in any item of business as defined in the Code of Conduct 2007. If that interest is a prejudicial interest as defined in the Code, the member should withdraw from the meeting for that item.

068/PL/26 Minutes

Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on 21 September 2026.

069/PL/26 Planning Applications

(i) To approve delegated decisions submitted for Planning Applications for which the response date was prior to this Committee Meeting. See Appendix 1.

(ii)To consider and formulate a response to new Planning Applications received. See Appendix 2. Plus, amended plans for information only.

070/PL/26 Planning Decisions, Enforcements and Appeals.

District Decisions made since the last Planning Committee Meeting. See Appendix 3.

071/PL/26 Councillors/Members Update

072/PL/26 Correspondence.

073/PL/26 Exclusion of the Press & Public

Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 To resolve to exclude the press and public from the following business because publicity would prejudice the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business. Part two items: To discuss any possible unlawful buildings or business’s which have not been granted enforcement notices and therefore are not public.

074/PL/26 Outstanding Enforcements See Appendix 4.

075/PL/26 Next meeting date: 16 November 2026

APPENDIX 1

DELEGATED COMMENTS

APPENDIX 2

NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

PL/26/06817/FA 36 Hazell Way, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4DD

Householder application for the construction of a ground-floor infill extension, together with associated works already benefiting from established permitted development rights.

PL/26/06905/FA Warren Lodge, 14 Clevehurst Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4EP

Householder application for the construction of first floor rear and roof extension to dwelling house.

PL/26/07203/FA 99 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LP

Householder application for new position of vehicular entrance gates and picket fence.

PL/26/07779/FA Farnham Park Playing Fields & South Buckinghamshire Golf Course,Bucks, SL2 3BP

Demolition of the existing changing block and removal of tennis courts at Farnham Park Playing Fields and development comprising enhanced community sports facilities and a community sports hub building including changing facilities and associated ancillary uses such as café and office uses, floodlit 3G football pitch, floodlit padel courts, walking route, landscaping and associated works; Change of use of part of South Buckinghamshire Golf Course (Class F2) to a football training facility (Sui Generis), and development comprising football pitches, a performance centre building, indoor training pitch, spectator seating, maintenance facilities, parking, cycle parking, access roads, service and delivery areas, alterations to the existing access arrangements, public right of way and permissive path works, drainage and attenuation features, floodlighting, landscaping, boundary treatments and associated works; and Reconfiguration and development of the remainder of the golf course to provide a revised golf course layout including a practice range and academy course.

PL/26/07560/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed building consent for basement vault water ingress solution including additional external drainage and newton style membrane.

PL/26/07561/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed building consent for structural strengthening and repair works to the first floor east and west bathroom extensions.

PL/26/07562/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed building consent for repair and reinforcement of balustrade to first floor terraces/ground floor roof.

PL/26/07563/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed building consent for additional rainwater downpipes next to existing single rainwater stack and in the brick kitchen flue extract.

PL/26/07946/FA 3 Hampden Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4JF

The construction of a single storey rear extension with alterations to existing flat roof incorporating a pitched roof around perimeter.

PL/26/07935/FA The Dutch House , Stoke Court Drive, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LT

Loft conversion above garage, and front elevation alteration for pillars.

AMENDED PLANS

PLANS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

TREE PRESEERVATION ORDER

APPENDIX 3

PLANNING DECISIONS

PL/26/05646/VRC Land Adjacent Jasmine Lodge, School Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire.

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref: PL/25/2164/FA (Retention of the change of use of the existing cabin and the retention of the converted haybarn to form a single residential dwelling and residential annexe to provide ancillary accommodation with an associated area of outdoor recreational space (retrospective)) to allow for the retention of the existing veranda attached to the front of the dwelling.

Parish Comments: Stoke Poges Parish Council objects.

The Parish Council has considered the proposal having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, including the current national policy relating to Grey Belt, the relevant saved policies of the South Bucks District Local Plan, the South Bucks Core Strategy, the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, the planning and enforcement history of the site and the emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan 2045 Regulation 19 Publication Version.

Grey Belt and the National Planning Policy Framework:

The Parish Council acknowledges the change to national Green Belt policy following the introduction of the concept of Grey Belt. For the purposes of this representation, the Parish Council accepts that the application should be considered against the current NPPF definition and policy tests applying to Grey Belt land. However, Grey Belt status does not create an automatic presumption that development should be permitted. Grey Belt remains land within the Green Belt unless and until Green Belt boundaries are altered through the statutory plan-making process. The identification of land as Grey Belt does not amount to an allocation for development, nor does it displace the requirement to assess a proposal against the Development Plan and all other material planning considerations. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether this land may qualify as Grey Belt. The question is whether the proposal satisfies all of the relevant requirements of the NPPF and the Development Plan.

Under NPPF paragraph 155, development on Grey Belt land is not to be regarded as inappropriate development only where the applicable criteria are satisfied. These include the requirement that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area, that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, that the development is in a sustainable location and, where applicable, that the Golden Rules are satisfied. The Parish Council considers the sustainable location requirement to be of particular importance in this case.

Unsustainable Location and Poor Pedestrian Connectivity:

School Lane is a semi rural lane with limited pedestrian infrastructure. There is no continuous footway or pavement serving the site and surrounding area, and there is little or no street lighting. Pedestrian connectivity is poor and residents are consequently heavily dependent upon private motor vehicles for access to shops, schools, services, employment and public transport. These characteristics are directly relevant to the sustainable-location test within paragraph 155 of the NPPF.

Theoretical walking distances should not be treated as equivalent to safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian accessibility. A route without continuous footways and street lighting is materially less accessible, particularly for children, elderly residents, people with reduced mobility and those travelling during darkness or poor weather. The proposal would therefore reinforce car dependency rather than contribute towards a pattern of development which supports sustainable transport.

The absence of street lighting also forms part of the established semi-rural character of Stoke Poges. Introducing further residential development can create additional pressure for external domestic lighting, highway lighting, security lighting and associated infrastructure. This would result in further suburbanisation and erosion of the dark-skies character which the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect. The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposal fails to demonstrate that this is a sustainable location for additional residential development.

Planning History:

The planning history of this land is a material consideration and should be given appropriate weight. The site has been the subject of previous applications, refusals, appeal proceedings, retrospective development and enforcement involvement.

Application 14/00839/FUL concerned the retrospective erection of an agricultural building and associated yard. That application was refused and the subsequent appeal was dismissed.

More recently, PL/25/2164/FA sought retrospective retention of the change of use of the existing cabin and converted haybarn to form a residential dwelling and residential annexe with associated outdoor recreational space.

The Parish Council previously objected to that application and raised concern regarding the incremental establishment and intensification of residential use on land within the Green Belt. The planning history is therefore important in understanding the cumulative evolution of development at this location.

The introduction of Grey Belt policy does not wipe that history clean. Previous planning decisions, appeal findings, conditions, enforcement matters and the reasons why earlier development was considered unacceptable remain material where relevant to the present proposal. The Council should consider whether the current variation would further intensify or consolidate residential development at the site and whether the cumulative effect would materially alter the character and planning status of the land. If the proposed variation would result in a materially different development from that previously permitted, a fresh planning application should be required rather than seeking to secure such changes through a variation of condition.

Cumulative Impact of Nearby Development:

The Parish Council is particularly concerned that the application cannot properly be considered in isolation. There are a number of substantial development proposals within the surrounding area which, if permitted either individually or cumulatively, would place significant additional pressure on local roads, services, infrastructure and the rural character of Stoke Poges and Wexham.

These include:

PL/26/01820/OA for approximately 317 dwellings;
PL/25/6431/OA for approximately 50 dwellings;
PL/26/06177/OA and PL/26/06178/OA for a combined total of approximately 680 dwellings; and
the prospect of a further major commercial proposal at Pinewood Nurseries, Wexham Street, potentially involving warehousing and/or data-centre development.

These proposals represent, collectively, a very substantial potential increase in development within and around an area which already has constrained highway capacity, limited pedestrian infrastructure and limited local facilities. The cumulative effect of these schemes must be taken into account when considering whether further development at Jasmine Lodge represents sustainable development. The Parish Council is concerned that incremental approvals on individual Grey Belt sites could result in a pattern of unplanned strategic growth without the infrastructure, transport planning or spatial strategy normally required to support development of this scale. That would be contrary to a plan led approach.

The correct assessment is not simply whether each application might be capable of being accommodated when viewed in isolation, but whether the combined effect of existing commitments, pending applications and reasonably foreseeable development would result in unacceptable pressure upon the local highway network, pedestrian safety, local services, landscape character and Green Belt function. The Parish Council asks Buckinghamshire Council to undertake an explicit cumulative impact assessment before determining this application.

Buckinghamshire Local Plan 2045 Regulation 19 Publication Version:

The Parish Council notes that the emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan 2045 Regulation 19 Publication Version does not identify Stoke Poges or Wexham as locations for the scale of development now being promoted through a series of individual planning applications. This is highly relevant. The emerging Local Plan represents Buckinghamshire Council's current strategic approach to the distribution of growth across the authority area. The Parish Council is concerned that permitting substantial development through a succession of individual planning applications on Green Belt or Grey Belt land would risk circumventing the plan-making process and creating strategic growth in locations which have not been selected for such development through the Local Plan. The cumulative effect of the applications currently being promoted in and around Stoke Poges and Wexham is potentially very substantial.

PL/26/01820/OA, PL/25/6431/OA, PL/26/06177/OA and PL/26/06178/OA alone amount to approximately 1,047 dwellings, before taking account of any additional development at Pinewood Nurseries or other pending proposals. Such a scale of growth should be considered strategically through the Local Plan process rather than allowed to emerge incrementally through individual applications. The absence of strategic allocation for this scale of development is therefore a significant material consideration.

Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan:

The made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the statutory Development Plan and must be given full and proper consideration. The Neighbourhood Plan was prepared by the local community to identify an appropriate and sustainable pattern of development for Stoke Poges. Importantly, the Neighbourhood Plan did identify sites considered suitable for modest development, particularly where development could be accommodated in locations with reasonable access to the village's limited infrastructure and services. That approach demonstrates that the Parish Council and local community are not opposed to development in principle. Rather, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that development is proportionate, properly located and related to available infrastructure. This is an important distinction. The present pattern of speculative development proposals risks undermining that plan-led approach by introducing substantial additional housing in locations which were not identified through the Neighbourhood Plan process as suitable for such growth.

The Neighbourhood Plan also seeks to protect the distinctive semi rural character of Stoke Poges, encourage sustainable movement, reduce unnecessary reliance upon private cars, protect important landscape characteristics and retain the village's dark skies environment. Development at a location without continuous pavements, street lighting or strong access to local services does not sit comfortably with those objectives. The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy and sustainable-development objectives of the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.

Saved South Bucks Policies and Core Strategy:

The application must also be considered against the relevant saved policies of the South Bucks District Local Plan and the South Bucks Core Strategy. The revised NPPF treatment of Grey Belt does not remove the statutory requirement under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant local policies concerning Green Belt, character, landscape, housing, transport, accessibility and sustainable development therefore remain part of the decision-making framework to the extent that they are consistent with current national policy. The Parish Council asks the case officer to identify expressly within the officer report the relevant saved South Bucks policies and Core Strategy policies and to assess the proposal against those policies rather than treating Grey Belt status as determinative.

Incremental Urbanisation:

The Parish Council is concerned about the incremental urbanisation of this part of Stoke Poges. The cumulative introduction of dwellings, residential gardens, vehicles, hardstanding, lighting, domestic paraphernalia, boundary treatments and associated activity can materially change the character of land even where individual applications appear limited in scale. This is particularly relevant where development occurs through a sequence of retrospective applications, variations of condition and incremental changes of use. Such development can gradually transform the character of a site and its surroundings without the strategic assessment that would accompany a properly planned allocation. The Council should therefore assess the real cumulative effect of the development rather than viewing each individual element in isolation.

Section 73 and Variation of Condition:

The Parish Council recognises that PL/26/05646/VRC is an application seeking variation or removal of condition rather than a completely new planning application. However, a permission granted under Section 73 constitutes a new planning permission. Buckinghamshire Council must therefore consider the Development Plan and all material planning considerations relevant to the variation being sought. The Council should examine carefully why the original condition was imposed and whether the proposal would undermine the planning purpose which that condition was intended to secure. In particular, the Council should consider whether the variation would increase the permanence or intensity of residential use, increase built form or hardstanding, increase traffic or vehicle movements, introduce additional lighting or domestic activity, weaken controls protecting rural character or Green Belt openness, or otherwise result in a materially different development. A condition which was necessary to make a development acceptable should not be removed or weakened without clear and compelling planning justification.

Plan-Led Development:

The Parish Council considers that the wider context is particularly important. Stoke Poges has a made Neighbourhood Plan which provides a locally supported framework for modest and proportionate development. Buckinghamshire Council has also now published its Regulation 19 Local Plan, setting out the authority's strategic approach to future growth. Neither process has identified Stoke Poges or Wexham for the scale of development represented by the current cluster of applications. The Parish Council is therefore concerned that speculative applications are effectively seeking to establish a new growth strategy outside the statutory plan-making process. That approach risks creating development first and addressing infrastructure consequences afterwards creating great strain on existing infrastructure. Such an outcome would be contrary to the plan led principles at the heart of the planning system.

Conclusion:

Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to this variation of condition and requests that the application be refused. The Parish Council acknowledges that the land may fall within the current national definition of Grey Belt. However, Grey Belt status is not determinative and does not create an automatic entitlement to residential development. The proposal must satisfy the full requirements of the NPPF, including the requirement for development to be in a sustainable location. The lack of continuous pavements, limited street lighting, poor pedestrian connectivity and consequent dependency upon private motor vehicles weigh heavily against the sustainability of this location. The site's planning and enforcement history is also material and demonstrates the need to consider carefully the cumulative and incremental establishment of residential development. The proposal must further be considered in the context of the significant number of major applications now being promoted in the wider Stoke Poges and Wexham area.

PL/26/01820/OA, PL/25/6431/OA, PL/26/06177/OA and PL/26/06178/OA collectively propose approximately 1,047 dwellings, with further potential commercial development at Pinewood Nurseries, Wexham Street. The cumulative impact of these proposals would be substantial and cannot properly be ignored.

The emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version does not identify Stoke Poges or Wexham for development on this scale, while the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan has already identified an appropriate approach to modest development in locations related to the village's limited infrastructure.

The Parish Council therefore considers that permitting further speculative development at this location would undermine the plan-led approach, exacerbate existing infrastructure deficiencies and contribute towards the incremental urbanisation of the Green Belt.

For these reasons, Stoke Poges Parish Council requests that Buckinghamshire Council refuse PL/26/05646/VRC.

If officers are minded to approve the application contrary to the Parish Council's objection, the Parish Council requests that the application be referred to Planning Committee so that the Grey Belt tests, sustainable location assessment, planning history, cumulative development pressures and relationship with the Development Plan can be considered transparently by elected Members.

Hereby Refuses Permission

PL/26/02308/FA Pioneer Secondary Academy Hollybush Hill Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire SL2 4QB

Change of use of a first-floor room from education use (Use Class F1 (a) to private hire celebration events use (Sui Generis) for a temporary period of six months.

Parish Comments:

Stoke Poges Parish Council maintains a strong objection to the proposal and considers that, even on a temporary basis, it would result in unacceptable and unjustified harm to highway safety, residential amenity, environmental quality and the character of the area, contrary to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

1. Unsuitable Rural Lane and Highway Safety Concerns:

Hollybush Hill is a narrow, semi-rural and already congested lane that is fundamentally unsuitable for additional private hire event traffic. The road has limited passing provision, restricted visibility, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure and no street lighting. In these conditions, pedestrians and vehicles are in direct conflict, particularly during darker hours and adverse weather, resulting in a near total reliance on private car access.

The proposal introduces a sui generis commercial celebration use into a location that is not designed to accommodate episodic peak visitor traffic. Even on a temporary basis, it would intensify arrivals, departures, drop-offs and pick-ups on an already constrained highway network affected by existing school-related traffic and associated contractor movements.

Importantly, the existing baseline conditions are already demonstrably constrained. Residents regularly report congestion, obstructive parking, unsafe manoeuvrers and difficulties accessing properties. These impacts have previously required monitoring and intervention by the Local Highway Authority.

Against this established context, the introduction of evening and weekend event activity would extend and intensify pressure on the network beyond existing peak school periods, effectively removing any respite for residents.

This is contrary to NPPF paragraph 115 and South Bucks Local Plan Policies T1 and T2, which require safe access and prevent severe cumulative transport impacts.

The Parish Council further notes the historic Section 78 appeal decision (APP/N0410/A/14/2215541), which recognised the sensitivity and constraint of this highway network and required significant mitigation including controlled parking measures, a dedicated bus service and travel planning controls. That decision confirms the limited capacity of the local network to absorb additional traffic-generating uses.

2. Inadequate Parking and Likely Overspill:

The application relies upon management-based mitigation rather than demonstrable physical capacity. The proposed parking and arrival framework is not considered robust, enforceable or realistic in operational terms.

It is considered inevitable that:

Overspill parking would occur on surrounding rural roads.

Stewarding would be unable to prevent displacement.

Informal waiting, stopping and turning movements would occur.

Taxi and private hire activity would add to congestion and roadside conflict.

There is insufficient evidence that parking demand can be safely contained within the site without displacement into the surrounding highway network.

This is contrary to NPPF paragraph 111 and South Bucks Local Plan Policy T5, which require safe, adequate and effective parking provision that is capable of being accommodated without adverse highway impact.

It is not unusual for guests attending Sikh weddings and similar large scale celebration events to travel from considerable distances, including from outside the local area, and to arrive in groups by coach, minibus or multiple vehicles. Such events can involve substantial guest numbers and extended arrival and departure periods. Hollybush Hill and the access arrangements serving the site are wholly unsuitable for larger vehicles of this nature. The lane is narrow, semi-rural in character, constrained in width and lacks suitable turning provision. Visibility is limited in places and there are no safe passing areas capable of accommodating opposing larger vehicles. The site access and surrounding highway network are therefore ill equipped to safely accommodate coach movements. The Parish Council is particularly concerned that there is a deep drainage ditch running alongside sections of the roadway opposite the school site. There have previously been incidents where vehicles have misjudged the road edge and entered the ditch, demonstrating the existing hazards and limitations of the highway environment. The introduction of additional event related traffic, particularly larger vehicles unfamiliar with the area, arriving during evening hours with dark nights and no street lighting causing periods of congestion, would materially increase the risk of highway danger, obstruction and unsafe manoeuvrings to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity.

3. Harm to Residential Amenity Through Noise:

The proposal introduces a fundamentally different and materially more intensive form of use compared with education, involving evening and weekend private celebrations, amplified sound, outdoor congregation and associated arrival and dispersal activity.

Given the elevated position of the site and the open rural character of the surroundings, sound propagation is a significant concern.

Noise impacts would arise from:

Guest arrivals and departures.

Outdoor socialising and congregation.

Vehicle movements and idling engines.

Doors closing and general activity.

Voices carrying across open ground.

Late-night dispersal.

These impacts are incompatible with the established residential character and would materially erode amenity. The introduction of evening and weekend event activity would extend and intensify pressure beyond existing peak school periods, effectively removing any respite for residents, enabling them to enjoy their peace, quiet and amenities.

4. Noise Assessment – Technical Concerns:

The Parish Council does not consider the submitted Noise Impact Assessment to be robust or representative of likely operational conditions.

The reliance on BS 4142 is inappropriate in this context, as it is primarily designed for assessing steady industrial or commercial sound sources rather than intermittent, impulsive and highly variable event noise. The proposal therefore does not adequately capture the nature of private celebration events, which include amplified music, crowd activity and unpredictable peak noise events.

Key concerns include:

Reliance on optimistic assumptions (doors/windows closed at all times).

No sensitivity testing for realistic operating scenarios.

Assumed building envelope performance without validation under live event conditions.

Inadequate modelling of courtyard and external event noise.

Car park modelling does not reflect real-world behaviour such as queuing, congregation, idling and taxi waiting.

In addition, the proposed erection of a marquee within the courtyard would further increase noise impacts. Such structures provide limited acoustic containment and are prone to sound breakout through fabric walls, entrances and openings, as well as increased internal reverberation. This would result in higher and more intrusive noise levels than those assumed within the assessment, particularly during periods of amplified music and peak occupancy. The existing dining space has sufficient capacity therefore we do not understand the need for the additional marquee.

Taken together, these limitations mean that peak noise events and cumulative evening impacts are likely to be materially underestimated. The assessment therefore does not demonstrate compliance with NPPF paragraph 130(f) or South Bucks Local Plan Policy EP3 and fails to provide confidence that residential amenity would be adequately protected.

5. Absence of Critical Operational Information:

The application fails to provide essential operational parameters, including:

Maximum capacity of the function room and marquee.

Number and frequency of events.

Expected attendance levels.

Staffing numbers.

Nature and scale of events.

Without this information, the true scale and intensity of the use cannot be properly assessed. This represents a fundamental deficiency in the submission.

The proposal is therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 194 and South Bucks Local Plan Policies EP3 and H3, which require decision-making to be based on sufficient and accurate information.

There are also multiple established venues within a 2–3-mile radius, including hotels and dedicated event facilities, which already serve this function in more suitable, purpose-built locations.

We also note inconsistencies within the submitted documents. The proposed site plan refers to ‘Khalsa Academy’, suggesting that the plans may relate to the 2019 application. Furthermore, the Planning Statement explicitly refers to a proposed use as a registry office for civil weddings. However, the current application does not seek permission for wedding use, instead describing the use as private hire and celebration events. The proposal states that permission is sought for the controlled use of one existing room for private hire celebration events such as birthdays and anniversaries, whereas the submitted plans identify a first-floor registry office. These discrepancies should be clarified.

6. Inappropriate Commercial Intensification of Use:

The proposal represents a clear intensification beyond the established educational use of the site.

Private celebration events generate peak, unpredictable and high-intensity activity patterns that are materially different in character and impact from normal school operations.

The absence of defined operational limits creates significant uncertainty. Without enforceable caps on capacity and frequency, the development cannot be properly assessed or controlled.

This conflicts with NPPF paragraph 130(a) and (f) and South Bucks Local Plan Policy H3, which require developments to protect residential amenity and ensure impacts are properly controlled.

7. Lack of Confidence in Enforceability:

The proposal relies heavily on behavioral controls and management measures, including noise monitoring, parking supervision and event management.

However, such measures are not considered realistically enforceable in real time during private events. Any breach would result in immediate harm prior to intervention by the Local Planning Authority.

This significantly reduces confidence that the proposed mitigation would be effective in practice.

8. Failure to Protect Residential Character, Environmental Harm, and Weight of Previous Appeal Findings:

The site is located on Hollybush hill situated within a quiet wholly residential area. It is flanked on either side by country lanes, with residential houses in Chapel Lane to the west and Hockley Lane to the east. Residential properties are also situated opposite on Hollybush Hill and to the rear on School Lane and Farthing Green Lane. The school itself is on an elevated site where noise travels and is amplified. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with core planning principles requiring protection of residential amenity, environmental quality and local character.

It is incompatible with the scale, form and sensitivity of Hollybush Hill and surrounding residential areas and is contrary to South Bucks Local Plan Policies H3, EP3 and T1–T5, and NPPF paragraphs 130 and 185.

In addition, the Parish Council raises significant concerns regarding:

Increased light pollution from evening events, vehicle headlights and temporary lighting.

Harm to rural character and night-time landscape quality.

Disturbance to wildlife, including bats, birds and other nocturnal species sensitive to lighting and noise.

These impacts have not been assessed within the application and represent a further material omission.

The Parish Council also places significant weight on the findings of the Secretary of State appeal decision (APP/N0410/A/14/2215541). That decision established that the site is highly constrained and requires extensive mitigation to manage existing educational use impacts, including controlled parking, a dedicated bus service, strict noise management controls and defined noise limits at the site boundary (40 dB LAeq15mins daytime / 30 dB LAeq15mins night-time).

That decision demonstrates that the site is already operating within tightly controlled parameters due to its sensitivity, although we do not believe that any controls are in place. The proposed development would fall outside those assumptions and would introduce uncontrolled evening and weekend activity, fundamentally undermining the established mitigation framework.

Sikh Celebrations:

It is well established within Sikh and wider Punjabi cultural practice that wedding and celebratory events are typically large social gatherings involving significant numbers of attendees, amplified music, and high levels of activity. Sikh weddings (Anand Karaj ceremonies followed by receptions) are commonly multi staged events where guest numbers frequently extend into the hundreds when including extended family and community networks, reflecting the strong communal nature of Sikh social and religious life. Typically, celebrations of this type are characteristically accompanied by live or amplified Punjabi music and the use of traditional percussion instruments such as the dhol, a large double-headed drum widely documented as central to Punjabi wedding processions, although it is recognised that dhol drumming does not take place inside the gurdwara it can take place outside and the road leading unto the gates. Celebratory dancing, particularly bhangra, which is recognised for its energetic movement and strong rhythmic drumming suitable for outdoor or large indoor events.

In practice, Sikh wedding receptions and private celebrations commonly involve continuous periods of music, dancing, and social interaction, often extending into the evening, with guests arriving and departing in phases rather than at a single fixed time. This creates repeated peaks of noise associated with vehicle movements, doors opening and closing, social gathering outdoors, and congregation in arrival and departure areas. The use of dhol drumming and amplified Punjabi music is widely associated with high energy dance forms such as bhangra, which is traditionally performed in groups and accompanied by strong percussion rhythms designed to carry across space and engage large crowds.

It is therefore reasonable, based on established cultural practice and documented characteristics of such events, to anticipate that Sikh wedding or celebration functions are not low-key gatherings but rather high intensity social events with significant guest attendance, sustained musical output, and concentrated periods of activity. These characteristics are directly relevant to planning considerations in terms of noise generation, evening disturbance, traffic generation, and the cumulative impact of arrivals and dispersal, particularly in a constrained residential or rural highway context.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons set out above, Stoke Poges Parish Council considers that the proposal would result in:

Unacceptable harm to residential amenity;

Significant noise and disturbance impacts;

Highway safety concerns and congestion;

Inadequate and uncontrolled parking impacts;

Environmental harm including light pollution and ecological disturbance;

An unjustified and inappropriate intensification of use.

The proposal is contrary to NPPF paragraphs 111, 115, 130, 130(f), 185 and 194, and conflicts with South Bucks Local Plan Policies T1–T5, H3 and EP3, as well as the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan Dark Skies policy.

When applying the planning balance, the identified harms are clear, cumulative, and insufficiently mitigated. The Parish Council therefore considers that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh any limited benefits of a temporary change of use.

Accordingly, the Parish Council respectfully requests that Buckinghamshire Council refuse planning permission and confirms that it would be prepared to present this objection in full to the Planning Inspectorate should the application proceed to appeal.

Withdrawn

PL/26/05614/FA Home Farm Barn , School Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4QA

Erection of 2 x detached dwellinghouses with associated engineering operations.

Parish Comments: In preparing this objection, the Parish Council has had particular regard to:

the applicant’s Planning, Design and Access Statement dated 9 June 2026;
Outline planning permission refused PL/20/2457/FA
Buckinghamshire Council’s delegated officer report for PL/25/0834/FA;
the Planning Inspector’s decision in APP/N0410/W/22/3300021;
the National Planning Policy Framework;
the South Bucks District Local Plan;
the South Bucks Core Strategy; and
the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan 2020–2042.

The Parish Council acknowledges that planning permission PL/25/0834/FA was granted for one self-build dwellinghouse with detached garage, gate and fencing, and that this represents a material fallback position. The Parish Council also acknowledges that the site has been assessed as falling within an area identified as provisional grey belt, and that Buckinghamshire Council relied upon that position when determining the previous application. However, neither the existence of the one dwelling permission nor the identification of the site as grey belt establishes that the present proposal for two dwellings is acceptable. The current application is materially different and must be assessed on its own planning merits.

Grey belt status is not the end of the planning assessment:

The previous officer report records that the application site falls within Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment area SP002 and that this area was found to make “no notable contribution” to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d). The assessment described the area as “provisional grey belt.” The Parish Council therefore does not base its objection on an assertion that the site cannot be grey belt. Instead, the Parish Council submits that grey belt status is a starting point, not a conclusion. NPPF paragraph 155 requires the Local Planning Authority to consider whether the development proposed satisfies all relevant requirements. That means the current two-dwelling scheme must be considered afresh. The previous planning decision related to one dwelling only. The present application proposes two. The applicant’s own statement confirms that:

the northern dwelling is positioned broadly within the footprint of the approved permission; and
the second dwelling is located further south.

The applicant also expressly acknowledges that:

the current proposal results in a reduction in the extent of the meadow previously approved under PL/25/0834/FA.

Accordingly, the current proposal changes the extent, intensity and relationship of residential development with the open land to the south. The Parish Council considers that these changes require a fresh assessment under the NPPF, the Development Plan and the made Neighbourhood Plan. The grey belt assessment relied upon was provisional The previous officer report is important because it did not identify the site as an unconditional housing allocation. The Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment was expressly described as unadopted, although capable of carrying some weight. The site was described as “provisional grey belt”, and the officer report noted that further site-specific consideration was required in relation to biodiversity and the historic environment. The Parish Council therefore considers it inappropriate for the applicant to treat the earlier grey belt conclusion as effectively determining the current application. The current scheme must still demonstrate that its particular scale, layout and effects are acceptable.

The current proposal is materially more intensive than the fallback The fallback permission is for one dwelling. The current proposal is for two. The proper planning comparison is therefore not between:

no development; and
two dwellings.

It is between:

one permitted dwelling; and
two proposed dwellings.

The net housing benefit over the fallback is therefore effectively one additional dwelling. The Council’s own officer report for PL/25/0834/FA concluded that the housing benefit from a single dwelling should attract only limited weight. That is highly relevant to the planning balance for this application.

Southward extension of built development The location of the second dwelling is a central concern. The applicant describes the dwellings as being arranged in a linear form extending southwards from Home Farm Barn, with the second dwelling located further south than the permitted dwelling. This means the second dwelling is not simply an alternative treatment within the already-approved position. It represents an extension of permanent residential development further south.

That additional development brings with it:

an additional two-storey building;
additional residential curtilage;
parking and turning areas;
another access;
1.8 metre gates;
1.8 metre close-boarded fencing;
lighting;
garden structures;
domestic paraphernalia; and
additional residential activity.

The applicant confirms that both dwellings would be two-storey, four-bedroom houses of approximately 173 sqm GIA. The Parish Council considers that this materially intensifies and consolidates development along a sensitive Green Belt edge.

Green Belt openness remains relevant even if the site is grey belt Grey belt status does not make Green Belt openness irrelevant. The Planning Inspector previously considered the physical effects of residential development at this location and found that a two-storey dwelling, parking, domestic curtilage and associated paraphernalia would harm Green Belt openness in both visual and spatial terms. Those physical effects remain relevant. The present proposal introduces more built form and more domestic activity than the permitted fallback. The Parish Council therefore considers that the current proposal would cause a greater degree of spatial and visual domestication than the one-dwelling permission.

Previous Inspector findings on the character of Keens Acre. The previous Inspector’s site-specific findings remain highly material. The Inspector described:

detached properties on spacious plots;
a sporadic development pattern;
open countryside to the south;
a semi rural character and appearance; and
Keens Acre as an isolated pocket of dwellings.

The Inspector also found that open green spaces created a physical and visual distinction between Keens Acre and the main settlement. These findings were based on the physical character of the locality. That character has not ceased to exist because national policy now recognises grey belt. The Parish Council considers that extending development further south with an additional dwelling would erode precisely the spacious, sporadic and semi-rural qualities previously identified by the Inspector.

Reduction of the previously protected meadow. The treatment of the meadow is one of the strongest material distinctions between the fallback permission and the current application. The Council imposed conditions on PL/25/0834/FA requiring:

a Landscape and Management Plan;
native meadow planting;
future maintenance;
removal of hardstanding; and
permanent retention of the meadow.

The reasons for those conditions expressly included safeguarding Green Belt openness and improving biodiversity. The Council also required the meadow beyond the residential curtilage to remain permanently open and devoid of structures, buildings, paraphernalia and stored items. The meadow was therefore not incidental landscaping. It was part of the planning mitigation that made the one-dwelling scheme acceptable. To date this condition has not been satisfied by the applicant. The applicant now proposes to reduce that meadow. The current applicant expressly admits that the meadow area would be reduced compared with the approved scheme. At the same time, the applicant relies on the remaining meadow as providing:

visual relief;
ecological benefit;
a transition to the open setting; and
a sense of openness within the Green Belt.

The Parish Council considers there is an obvious tension in that case. If the meadow performs an important landscape and openness function, reducing its extent necessarily weakens that function. The proposal therefore represents a material erosion of mitigation specifically required under the earlier permission.

Policy GB1 remains part of the Development Plan. The applicant itself acknowledges that the proposed two-dwelling development would not comply with Policy GB1, particularly in light of the previous appeal decision regarding limited infilling. The Parish Council accepts that current national policy must be given appropriate weight where there is inconsistency. However, Policy GB1 remains relevant insofar as its underlying objectives seek to protect Green Belt character, openness and amenity. The current proposal’s greater extent, southward spread and meadow reduction weigh against those objectives.

Character and appearance – Policy EP3 and Core Policy CP8. Policy EP3 requires development to respect the character of the site and surrounding area in terms of:

scale;
layout;
height;
design; and
materials.

The applicant itself accepts that EP3 requires development to be compatible with the character and amenities of the locality. Core Policy CP8 similarly seeks development that respects and enhances local character and distinctiveness. The Parish Council considers that the key issue is not merely the architectural treatment of the two houses. The pattern and extent of development are themselves important components of local character. The current proposal would convert a more sporadic arrangement into a more consolidated residential frontage extending southwards.

Previous appeal findings on design and character:

The Planning Inspector previously found the earlier dwelling proposal to be bulky, dominant, incongruous and obtrusive. The Inspector concluded that it would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy EP3 and Core Policy CP8. The Parish Council recognises that the subsequently approved one-dwelling scheme was redesigned and reduced in scale. However, that does not establish that two substantial dwellings are acceptable. The issue here is the cumulative effect of two houses and associated domestic development on the character of the locality.

Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan:

SP6:The Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan 2020–2042 was made in August 2025 and forms part of the Development Plan. Policy SP6 is directly relevant. Buckinghamshire Council itself relied upon SP6 when determining the previous one dwelling application. The Parish Council considers that the following Design Code principles are particularly relevant:

LB01 – Pattern of Development: New development should respond to and reinforce the established development pattern. The Inspector identified this area as sporadic, spacious and semi-rural. The second dwelling would consolidate development and push the built edge further south.

LB03 – Local Vernacular and Context: Compliance cannot be reduced to the use of brick, pitched roofs or traditional detailing. Overall siting, massing, scale and relationship with the surrounding landscape are equally important.

LS01 – Green Infrastructure: The previously approved meadow forms part of the site’s green infrastructure and landscape transition. Its reduction should carry significant weight.

LS02 – Wildlife and Biodiversity: The meadow had a specific biodiversity function and was protected by conditions under the earlier permission.

LS03 – Development Edges in the Rural Landscape: This is especially relevant. The present meadow forms the transition between residential development and the more open land to the south. The second dwelling moves the residential edge further into that transition.

SF02 – Water Management and SuDS: Given the additional dwelling, engineering operations, parking and hardstanding, proper drainage and SuDS information should be assessed.

Sustainability under NPPF paragraph 155(c):

If the proposal is to rely on grey-belt provisions, it must also satisfy the requirement to be in a sustainable location. The previous officer assessment concluded that one dwelling was acceptable in sustainability terms. However, that finding related to the earlier scheme and should not simply be carried forward without scrutiny. The current proposal is more intensive and should be assessed afresh.

Walking accessibility and pedestrian infrastructure:

The previous officer report recorded that the site is approximately 440 metres from the School Lane/Hollybush Hill junction and considered some facilities accessible on foot. However, it also acknowledged that the initial part of the journey is along the private access road. The School in School Lane is no longer used as a mainstream village school, it is now an independent special needs school. The School located in Hollybush Hill is a faith based secondary school mainly serving children from West London and Slough. Keens Acre is unadopted and private. The Parish Council considers that sustainability must be assessed by reference to the quality and usability of the route, not distance alone. There are locations on relevant routes where pedestrian footway provision is absent or discontinuous and are unlit.

This is important for:

children;
older people;
people with limited mobility;
people using wheelchairs or pushchairs; and
pedestrians travelling in poor weather or darkness.

Likely reliance on private cars: The proposed dwellings are substantial four-bedroom family homes.The applicant provides dedicated parking and turning areas for both. The Parish Council considers that occupants are likely to rely significantly upon private cars for many day to day journeys. This weakens the applicant’s claim that the site represents a particularly sustainable location. Adequate parking provision is not the same as sustainable accessibility.

Wider cumulative development pressure:The current application should also be considered in the context of significant development pressure in and around Stoke Poges. The Parish Council does not suggest that this application alone would overwhelm local infrastructure. The concern is cumulative.Repeated small and large development proposals generate increasing demand upon:

roads;
pedestrian infrastructure;
public transport;
schools;
healthcare;
drainage;
utilities; and
community facilities.

The Parish Council considers that these pressures should form part of the planning balance.

Housing and data-centre development pressure: There are substantial residential proposals and major non residential developments being promoted or considered in the wider Stoke Poges area. These include significant housing proposals and data-centre developments. The Parish Council’s concern is that substantial development pressure is occurring without equivalent strategic investment in local infrastructure. The present application should therefore not be viewed in complete isolation from the cumulative effect of surrounding development.

Please note near by planning applications which will have a calmative affect: PL/26/01820/OA for 317 dwellings. PL/25/6431/OA for 50 dwellings and a perspective application for warehousing and or a data centre at Pinewood Nurseries Wexham Street. PL/26/06177/OA and PL/26/06178/OA for a combined 680 dwellings. We note that development has not been earmarked in Buckinghamshire Councils Draft Local Plan Reg 19 for any identified development in Stoke Poges or Wexham. Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan did identify suitable sites for modest development with in the vicinity of any limited infrastructure.

Existing infrastructure has not increased proportionately: The Parish Council is concerned that development pressure has not been matched by equivalent improvements to:

pavements and pedestrian routes;
cycling infrastructure;
bus services;
healthcare provision;
local schools;
road capacity;
drainage;
utilities; and
other village infrastructure.

The Parish Council considers that this context reinforces the importance of applying sustainability and Green Belt edge policies carefully.

Access and highway considerations: The proposal would be accessed from Keens Acre, which is unadopted. The Highway Authority raised no objection to the previous one-dwelling scheme, but its comments also made clear that Keens Acre is outside the Authority’s maintenance jurisdiction. The absence of a Highway Authority objection therefore does not establish that pedestrian conditions are satisfactory or that the private access is well suited to further intensification. The second dwelling would add another access and further vehicle movements.

Drainage and associated engineering operations: The application includes associated engineering operations. The Parish Council considers that this is a material issue because additional development would involve:

more built footprint;
parking and hardstanding;
access works; and
surface-water management requirements.

The applicant proposes that drainage details could be dealt with by condition. The Parish Council considers that a detailed drainage and SuDS strategy should be available before determination, particularly given local concerns regarding drainage and the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Design Code SF02.

Ecology and biodiversity: The applicant argues that the hardstanding has limited ecological value. However, the key issue is not simply the ecological baseline of the hardstanding.

The Council previously required:

meadow creation;
native landscaping;
bird and bat boxes;
hedgehog permeability; and
ecological enhancements.

The current proposal would reduce the meadow that formed part of those measures. The Parish Council considers that this reduction should be properly justified.

Burnham Beeches SAC: The site lies within the 5.6 km Zone of Influence of Burnham Beeches SAC. The previous officer report records Natural England’s concern that new residential development within this zone can increase recreational pressure and requires Habitats Regulations assessment and mitigation. The previous appropriate assessment found that, without mitigation, the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC. The applicant states that it is willing to enter into a legal agreement for the required SAMMS contribution. The Parish Council considers that permission should not be issued unless the necessary Habitats Regulations assessment has been completed and all required mitigation has been legally secured.

Housing land supply: The Parish Council acknowledges Buckinghamshire Council’s housing land supply shortfall. However, this should not be treated as overriding all other considerations. One dwelling is already capable of being delivered through PL/25/0834/FA. The net additional benefit of the present scheme is therefore one dwelling. The Council has previously concluded that the benefit of one dwelling should receive only limited weight.

The planning balance: The Parish Council considers that the limited additional benefit of one dwelling must be weighed against:

the second two-storey dwelling;
southward extension of built development;
additional residential curtilage;
additional parking and turning areas;
an additional access;
additional gates and close-boarded fencing;
greater domestic paraphernalia and lighting;
reduction of the previously protected meadow;
increased visual and spatial domestication;
consolidation of the existing sporadic development pattern;
weakening of the semi-rural transition;
increased car reliance;
pedestrian infrastructure limitations;
additional cumulative infrastructure pressure; and
the need for further SAC mitigation.

Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the harm outweighs the limited incremental benefit.

Incremental erosion of the Green Belt edge: The Parish Council considers there is also a significant cumulative planning concern. A one-dwelling permission has only recently been granted. A new application now seeks two dwellings and a reduced meadow. If each subsequent intensification is accepted because the individual increment appears modest, the result is the progressive erosion of the Green Belt edge. The current application should therefore be judged not only by the appearance of each dwelling individually, but by the cumulative change in the character and openness of this part of Keens Acre.

Conclusion: Stoke Poges Parish Council requests that application PL/26/05614/FA be REFUSED. The Parish Council does not rely on a contention that grey-belt status automatically prevents development. Instead, the Parish Council’s case is that even accepting that the site may qualify as grey belt, this particular two dwelling proposal is materially more intensive than the approved fallback and causes additional site specific harm. The applicant itself establishes the critical differences:

the northern dwelling broadly occupies the permitted position;
the second dwelling extends further south; and
the approved meadow is reduced.

The previous Planning Inspector independently identified this location as:

spacious;
sporadically developed;
semi-rural; and
sensitive to the visual and spatial effects of residential development.

The Parish Council considers that the present application would materially intensify precisely those effects. The limited benefit of one additional dwelling does not outweigh the resulting harm to character, landscape transition, openness, sustainability and cumulative infrastructure pressure.

Even accepting that the site may constitute grey belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposed development, by reason of the introduction of a second substantial dwelling extending residential development further south, together with its associated residential curtilage, parking, access, boundary treatments, domestic paraphernalia and reduction in the extent of the previously approved meadow, would result in an unacceptable intensification and consolidation of residential development at this sensitive Green Belt edge. The proposal would erode the spacious, sporadic and semi-rural character of the locality, weaken the landscaped transition to open land and result in additional spatial and visual domestication. The limited benefit arising from one additional dwelling over and above the extant permitted fallback would not outweigh the identified harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GB1, EP3 and EP4 of the South Bucks District Local Plan, Core Policies CP8 and CP9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy, Policy SP6 and relevant Design Codes of the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, and the relevant objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The applicant has failed adequately to demonstrate that the materially intensified two-dwelling development occupies a suitably sustainable location having regard to the site’s access via the private and unadopted Keens Acre, limitations and discontinuities in pedestrian infrastructure on relevant routes and the consequent practical reliance upon private vehicles. The proposal has therefore not demonstrated compliance with the sustainable-location requirement applicable to grey-belt residential development under paragraph 155(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with the sustainable transport objectives of the Framework and Policy SP6 of the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.

In the absence of a completed Habitats Regulations assessment demonstrating no adverse effect upon the integrity of Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation and a completed legal obligation securing the necessary Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy mitigation contribution, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would avoid or adequately mitigate increased recreational pressure upon the SAC. The proposal would therefore conflict with Core Policy CP9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Should officers nevertheless be minded to recommend approval, the Parish Council requests that the application be referred to the appropriate Planning Committee for determination because of:

the site’s Green Belt/grey-belt context;
the material intensification from one dwelling to two;
the southward extension of built development;
the reduction of the previously protected meadow;
the made Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan;
the previous Planning Inspector’s site-specific findings;
questions concerning sustainable accessibility and car dependency;
cumulative infrastructure pressures; and
Burnham Beeches SAC requirements.

Withdrawn

PL/26/06010/TP 1 Sefton Paddock, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PT

T1 Oak - Reduce by approximately 7m to main crown break, lower growth reduced by up to 2m and remove ivy from stem. Structural defects detected at several unions in the upper canopy.

Parish Comments: No objection subject to the Tree Officer report.

Hereby Grants Consent

PL/25/4481/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed Building Consent for opening up works to determine extent of rot and damage to the historic fabric of Stoke Park Mansion, to include removal of damaged and non performing areas of slate roof, flashings, batting, sarking boards, upstands, existing timber roof structures, the removal of defective flashings around chimney stacks, parapet details, examination of cornices and stonework, removal of bossed render, removal of rotten timber window frames, remove all elements of non-functioning DPMs and waterproofing, internally lifting of floorboards for review of floor structure, and removal of elements of internal plasterwork and ceilings where dampness has occurred.

Parish Comments: No Comment.

Withdrawn

PL/25/4482/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Listed Building Consent for repairs to exterior of Stoke Park Mansion including roof structures, rainwater, balustrade, upstand repairs and facade repairs including cornices, render, stone detailing, lintels, windows, doors, brickwork structures in order to provide weather protection and structural repairs to maintain the longevity of Stoke Park Mansion.

Parish Comments: No Comment.

Withdrawn

PL/26/03685/FA The Bungalow, Wexham Street, Stoke Poges, Bucks SL3 6PA

Removal of existing roof and loft space and creation of new first floor with new roof.

Parish Comments: - Object This property is in a greenbelt settlement. We believe that EP3 and H11 apply. The windows will result in an over complicated and overly bulky roof form that would fail to offer any subservience to the original roof form. We further believe that LB03 of the Neighbourhood Plan Design Codes is relevant and Core Policy 2.

Hereby Refuse Permission

PL/26/03229/FA 1 Mobbs Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4FF

Single storey side extension with internal alterations approved under refer PL/25/4081/FA Seeking double storey side extension with internal alterations.

Parish Comments: Object, our previous comments still apply which were:

Parish Comments: Object, Policies EP3 & H9 apply. This is contrary to our adopted Neighbourhood Plan, LB03 and LB04 and Policy SP4.

This upsets the balance and symmetry of the whole development which sits adjacent to the Stoke Green conservation area. The development was originally built sympathetically to respect the Conservation area. Dwellings are of a moderate size. This house will not sit well with in the whole development.

Hereby Permits

PL/26/02179/PIP Land at Junction of Farthing Green Lane and Framewood Road, Stoke Poges,

Application for permission in principle for the erection of minimum of 9 and a maximum of 9 dwellings

Parish Comments: Object.

As this is planning in principle, the inclusion of this Green Belt land establishes the principle of development across the full extent of the site at this stage. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. No such circumstances have been demonstrated that would clearly outweigh the harm.

It is important to emphasise that this outline application seeks to establish the principle, scale, and extent of development. The fundamental harms identified, particularly the loss of Green Belt land, the excessive scale of development, and the resulting infrastructure impacts are matters of principle and cannot be addressed through reserved matters.

The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation or development of land at Farthing Green Lane. The site is not identified for development within the adopted Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, and its release would fundamentally conflict with both local and national planning policy.

Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the statutory development plan and carries full weight in decision-making. The proposed development would conflict directly with its spatial strategy, which seeks to direct growth to sustainable locations and protect the rural character of the parish. As such, the proposal fails to accord with the development plan as a whole. Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework confirms that where a proposal conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not normally be granted.

Consistent with decisions of the Planning Inspectorate, significant weight must be given to Neighbourhood plans where they are up to date and reflect the settled will of the local community. Proposals which undermine the spatial strategy of such plans are routinely found to cause substantial harm.

The Parish Council considers that the scale of development proposed would represent overdevelopment of this location. It would exceed that which is considered appropriate within the parish and would erode the established settlement pattern. This is contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires development to be sympathetic to local character, and paragraph 174, which recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal would extend built form into open countryside, undermining the rural identity of the village.

The site comprises undeveloped greenfield land that makes an important contribution to the landscape, ecological network, and environmental quality of the area. It is also in close proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and forms part of an important green corridor that supports the movement of wildlife between habitats. As such, the site performs a critical role in maintaining ecological connectivity within the wider landscape. Development would result in the permanent and irreversible loss of this function, leading to fragmentation of habitats and increased pressure on nearby designated sites.

This would conflict with paragraph 174 (a, b and d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity importance, and ecological networks, as well as paragraph 180, which seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and secure measurable net gains. In addition, paragraph 180 makes clear that development should not result in adverse impacts on sites of special scientific interest, either individually or in combination with other developments. The proximity of the site to an SSSI significantly increases the sensitivity of the location and the potential for harm.

The Parish Council also notes that the site performs important environmental functions, including carbon sequestration, air quality improvement, and natural drainage. Its loss would reduce climate resilience and increase environmental pressures, contrary to paragraphs 152 and 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The impact on the parish’s Dark Skies environment is also of significant concern. The introduction of built development and associated lighting would erode the existing dark landscape, causing harm to local amenities and nocturnal wildlife. This conflicts with paragraph 185 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Dark Skies policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The site is inherently unsustainable in transport terms. It lacks footpaths, street lighting, and reliable public transport, meaning that future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private vehicles to access shops, medical or local schools. This conflicts with paragraphs 105 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which promote sustainable transport and safe access for all users.

The Parish Council also raises serious concerns regarding flood risk and drainage. The site has varying levels of surface water flood risk, with the majority within low-risk areas but parts, particularly along the eastern boundary falling within areas of medium and high risk. While predicted flood depths may be relatively shallow, generally less than 20cm, these areas have the potential to affect proposed plots and access arrangements. This risk is likely to increase over time due to climate change, with more intense and frequent rainfall events increasing both the extent and severity of flooding. In extreme storm scenarios, such as a 1 in 1000-year event, there is potential for flooding to affect the entire site.

National policy within the National Planning Policy Framework requires the application of the sequential approach, directing development to areas at the lowest risk of flooding. Where this cannot be achieved, proposals must be supported by clear justification and robust mitigation. In this case, the presence of higher-risk areas within the site raises significant concerns as to whether this requirement can be satisfied.

In addition, groundwater levels are expected to be relatively high, within approximately 3 metres of the surface, which may limit the effectiveness of infiltration-based drainage. Any proposal would therefore require a comprehensive sustainable drainage strategy incorporating SuDS measures such as rainwater harvesting, swales, and attenuation basins. It must be demonstrated that the site can safely accommodate all storm events, including climate change allowances, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. At present, there is no evidence that this can be achieved.

The Parish Council also has serious concerns regarding the impact on local infrastructure and services. Local GP provision is already under significant strain, with residents experiencing difficulty accessing appointments. This conflicts with paragraphs 20(d) and 34 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Parking provision within the village centre is already inadequate, leading to congestion and unsafe conditions. Additional development would exacerbate these issues, contrary to paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, the local road network is not capable of safely accommodating increased traffic volumes, and the cumulative impact would be severe, contrary to paragraph 111.

The proposal would also conflict with the South Bucks District Local Plan, including policies GB1 and GB2, which protect the countryside, policy EP3 relating to local character, and policies H9 and H10 which direct development to appropriate locations.

In conclusion, the Parish Council considers that the proposal would give rise to multiple and significant adverse impacts. These include clear conflict with the statutory development plan, substantial harm to landscape character, loss of greenfield land and biodiversity, harm to an important green corridor and nearby SSSI, increased flood risk and drainage uncertainty, erosion of the Dark Skies environment, unsustainable transport patterns, and unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure and services.

When assessed in the round, these adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any potential benefits, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and consistent with decisions of the Planning Inspectorate.

The Parish Council therefore strongly objects and requests that the site is not allocated for development and that any future application is refused.

The proposal conflicts with the following national policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework:

Paragraph 12, which requires that decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Paragraph 20(d), which requires planning to support the provision of health and community infrastructure.

Paragraph 34, which requires infrastructure needs to be identified and delivered alongside development.

Paragraph 105, which promotes sustainable transport modes.

Paragraph 108, which requires safe access and appropriate parking provision.

Paragraph 110, which requires developments to provide safe and suitable access for all users.

Paragraph 111, which states that development should be refused where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Paragraph 130, which requires development to be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding landscape.

Paragraph 152 and 154, which require the planning system to support the transition to a low carbon future and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Paragraphs 159–169, which require the application of the sequential approach to flood risk and ensure development is directed to areas of lowest risk;

Paragraph 174, which requires protection and enhancement of valued landscapes, the countryside, and ecological networks.

Paragraph 180, which requires the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, including the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the achievement of measurable biodiversity net gain.

Paragraph 185, which requires planning decisions to limit light pollution and protect intrinsically dark landscapes.

The proposal also conflicts with the statutory requirement under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

At the local level, the proposal conflicts with the adopted Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan, including policies which:

Direct development to sustainable locations.

Protect the rural character and settlement pattern of the parish.

Safeguard biodiversity, green spaces, and ecological corridors.

Protect the Dark Skies environment.

Promote sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private vehicles.

The proposal also conflicts with the South Bucks District Local Plan, including:

Policy GB1 and GB2, which seek to protect the countryside and Green Belt from inappropriate development.

Policy EP3, which requires development to respect the character of the area.

Policies H9 and H10, which direct housing development to appropriate and sustainable locations.

ONGOING APPLICATIONS/ PENDING APPLICATIONS: (potentially a further 311) Please note ongoing applications awaiting decisions that will also have a cumulative

negative impact:

Land Adjacent To Plough Lane and Farthing Green Lane Plough Lane Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire SL2 4JP Ref. No: PL/25/6431/OA | Validated: Mon 15 Dec 2025 | Status: Registered

Land North Of Templewood Lane Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire Ref. No: PL/25/4894/FA | Validated: Thu 11 Dec 2025 | Status: Registered: Pending

PL/26/02179/PIP | Application for permission in principle for the erection of minimum of 9 and a maximum of 9 dwellings | Land at Junction Of Farthing Green Lane and Framewood Road Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire: Pending

Catesby Estates are acting on behalf of the landowners to promote Land off Gerrards Cross Road, Stoke Poges for possible future residential development and public open space.

Catesby Estates are a specialist strategic land promotion and infrastructure business, bringing sites forward through the planning process to deliver new homes, public open space and other community benefits.

Buckinghamshire Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. It is considered that the proposed development would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and meets the “Grey Belt” criteria as set out in the NPPF.

The site falls within the Stoke Poges Parish Council boundary and as a key stakeholder in the area we wanted to let the Council and its Councillors know about the public consultation for our proposals.

The key features of the proposals include:

Up to 150 new homes.

50% affordable housing.

New areas of public open space and planting, including new play space and areas for wildlife and biodiversity enhancements.

Creation of new recreational routes linking to wider existing Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and footpaths.

We are now starting our public consultation for the site.

A Leaflet will be delivered to local homes and businesses in close proximity to the site w/c 23rd March and can also be used on your online media channels or noticeboards.

The consultation website is catesby and contains details, plans and links to useful topics hosted on third party websites. Consultation closes Sunday 26th April 2026: No planning application as yet

17/01906/LBC | Part demolition at the rear and residential conversion of the existing Stoke Court mansion house, and re- development of site to provide 63 residential units and associated access, parking and landscaping. | Stoke Court Rogers Lane Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire SL2 4LY GRANTED

PL/25/6624/FA | Demolition of existing structures. Alterations and conversion of agricultural buildings to 5no. residential dwellings. Erection of 2no.car ports with electric charging points | High Farm Duffield Lane Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire SL2 4AL

Please note that there is also permission for 4 (4 granted) so that is a total of 9 dwellings.

dwelling Magnolia Farm Grays Park Road Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire Ref. No: PL/25/4588/PIP | Validated: Thu 16 Oct 2025 | Status: Decided

dwelling Magnolia Farm Grays Park Road Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire Ref. No: PL/25/4571/PIP | Validated: Tue 14 Oct 2025 | Status: Decided

Herby Permits

PL/26/03413/FA Fairmead, Duffield Park, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4HY

Part single, part double storey rear extension incorporating loft dormer extensions (granted under certificate of lawfulness application reference PL/25/5494/SA) and removal of existing greenhouse (-20m2). Conversion of existing conservatory into kitchen and incorporating a small utility extension.

Parish Comments: - No Comment However, we note the property is in Green Belt. We would like to point out that the family bathroom has been removed and there is no replacement on the drawings.

Hereby Refuse Permission

PL/26/06119/FA 6 Penn Meadow, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4EB

Two storey side and part rear extension and single storey rear extension

Parish Comments: No Comment

Herby Permits

PL/26/07237/PNR The Fox and Pheasant, Gerrards Cross Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4EZ

Prior notification under Class M of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 - Change of use of first floor from public house/restaurant (sui generis) to dwelling (Use Class C3).

Parish Comments: Objection – proposed development does not fall within Class M

Stoke Poges Parish Council objects to this application on the basis that the proposed development does not appear to fall within the permitted development right relied upon by the applicant. The application seeks prior approval under Class M of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the change of use of the first-floor accommodation associated with the Fox and Pheasant public house to a dwellinghouse within Use Class C3.

The starting point must be the scope of the permitted development right itself.

Class M provides, so far as relevant:

(a) a change of use of a building from—

(i) a use falling within one of the following—

(aa) launderette;

(bb) betting office;

(cc) pay day loan shop;

(dd) hot food takeaway;

to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order.

The permitted development right is therefore confined to the particular existing uses identified in Class M. A public house is not one of those qualifying uses.

The Parish Council understands that the first-floor accommodation at the Fox and Pheasant has historically been occupied as accommodation for the manager of the public house in connection with the operation of that business. It has not historically operated as a separate, independently occupied C3 dwelling.

As the first-floor accommodation is ancillary to the public house, it forms part of the planning use of the public house rather than constituting an independent dwellinghouse. The proposal would therefore involve severing that accommodation from the public house and establishing a separate and independently occupiable C3 dwelling.

Class M does not grant permitted development rights for the conversion or severance of accommodation ancillary to a public house into an independent dwelling.

Furthermore, if the first floor is instead characterised, as the application description appears to suggest, as forming part of the sui generis public house/restaurant use, the same fundamental difficulty arises. A public house or sui generis public house use is not amongst the qualifying existing uses specified in Class M(a)(i).

The Government's Explanatory Memorandum to the 2021 amendments to the GPDO confirms the intended scope of the amended Class M right:

“The amended right provides for the change from a launderette, betting office, pay day loan shop or hot food takeaway to residential C3...”

There therefore appears to be no basis within Class M for a change from either:

(a) accommodation ancillary to a public house; or (b) a sui generis public house use,

to an independent C3 dwellinghouse.

The Parish Council considers this to be a threshold issue concerning whether the proposed development is capable of being permitted development under Class M, rather than simply a matter falling within the matters for prior approval.

Accordingly, the Parish Council requests that Buckinghamshire Council first satisfies itself as to the lawful existing use of the first-floor accommodation and whether that use falls within one of the qualifying uses expressly identified in Class M. On the information presently available, the Parish Council considers that it does not. The proposed development therefore does not appear to constitute permitted development under Class M, and the application for prior approval should consequently not be approved on that basis

Withdrawn

Planning Committee - Meeting Agenda

Monday 19th October 2026

Table Of Contents

Introduction

Agenda Items

065/PL/26 Items by Members of Public Present.

066/PL/26 Apologies for Absence and Acceptance.

067/PL/26 Declarations of Interest

068/PL/26 Minutes

069/PL/26 Planning Applications

070/PL/26 Planning Decisions, Enforcements and Appeals.

071/PL/26 Councillors/Members Update

072/PL/26 Correspondence.

073/PL/26 Exclusion of the Press & Public

074/PL/26 Outstanding Enforcements See Appendix 4.

075/PL/26 Next meeting date: 16 November 2026

APPENDIX 1

DELEGATED COMMENTS

APPENDIX 2

NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

PL/26/06817/FA 36 Hazell Way, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4DD

PL/26/06905/FA Warren Lodge, 14 Clevehurst Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4EP

PL/26/07203/FA 99 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LP

PL/26/07779/FA Farnham Park Playing Fields & South Buckinghamshire Golf Course,Bucks, SL2 3BP

PL/26/07560/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/26/07561/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/26/07562/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/26/07563/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/26/07946/FA 3 Hampden Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4JF

PL/26/07935/FA The Dutch House , Stoke Court Drive, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4LT

AMENDED PLANS

PLANS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

TREE PRESEERVATION ORDER

APPENDIX 3

PLANNING DECISIONS

PL/26/05646/VRC Land Adjacent Jasmine Lodge, School Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire.

PL/26/05614/FA Home Farm Barn , School Lane, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4QA

PL/26/06010/TP 1 Sefton Paddock, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PT

PL/25/4481/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/25/4482/HB Stoke Park House, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

PL/26/03685/FA The Bungalow, Wexham Street, Stoke Poges, Bucks SL3 6PA

Hereby Refuse Permission

PL/26/03229/FA 1 Mobbs Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4FF

PL/26/02179/PIP Land at Junction of Farthing Green Lane and Framewood Road, Stoke Poges,

PL/26/03413/FA Fairmead, Duffield Park, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4HY

PL/26/06119/FA 6 Penn Meadow, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4EB

PL/26/07237/PNR The Fox and Pheasant, Gerrards Cross Road, Stoke Poges, SL2 4EZ

Use of cookies