The Buckinghamshire Council's Strategic Sites Committee met to discuss an application for a spring chamber and associated works near Wendover, required as part of the HS2 project. Councillors ultimately voted to refuse the application, citing concerns over landscape and visual harm, and a failure to take a landscape-led approach. While acknowledging the need for the spring chamber itself, the committee felt the proposed access route and associated construction traffic would have a detrimental impact on the Chilterns National Landscape.

HS2 Spring Chamber Application Refused

The main item on the agenda was application 25/00406/APP for the installation of a spring chamber and flow monitoring chamber with associated pipework for HS2, located at Mogford Chamber, Bridleways, Wendover, HP22 6DN. The application sought full planning permission for the development, which included:

• A spring chamber and flow monitoring chamber, submerged underground.
• An attached power box with a roof-mounted solar panel.
• A headwall outflow structure.
• Reprofiling of an existing drainage ditch.
• Stock-proof fencing.
• An upgrade and extension to an existing access track.
• A temporary laydown area for construction.

The proposed spring chamber is required to mitigate the impact of HS2 works on groundwater flows, ensuring that water levels in the Stoke and Wendover Brooks are maintained.

Decision: The committee voted to refuse the application.

Arguments for Approval:

• Tom Blackman, principal planning officer stated that the spring chamber was essential to comply with Environment Agency consents, protecting the Stoke and Wendover Brooks. He also noted that the Highways Officer did not object to the proposal on highways grounds.
• He argued that without the proposal, there would be severe environmental impacts to the area, and very significant weight should be given to the benefit of mitigating HS2 works.
• Robert Sinclair, ecologist for EKFB stated that the access track goes through very low quality habitats, and that the route was the most ecologically viable.

Arguments Against Approval:

• A key concern raised by councillors and members of the public was the proposed access route for construction vehicles, which would involve using South Street and Dobbins Lane in Wendover. Concerns were raised about the suitability of these roads for heavy traffic, especially given the presence of parked cars, pedestrians, and schoolchildren.
• Councillor Peter Strachan, ward councillor and Cabinet member for Planning and Regeneration, opposed the application, stating that it had fundamental flaws. He argued that HS2 had not properly considered alternative access routes and that the proposed route would create a potentially dangerous environment for Wendover residents. > As a public authority, we have a responsibility to protect our residents from the danger that this application creates. - Councillor Peter Strachan
• Councillor Steve Bowles, Wendover Ward Councillor, also opposed the application, raising serious concerns regarding traffic issues and the proposed access route. He stated that South Street is narrowed by parked cars and that Dobbins Lane is heavily used by pedestrians and schoolchildren.
• Councillor Richard Newcombe highlighted the landscape officers' conclusion that there is significant negative weight attributed to this particular application with regards to the fact that it is in a national landscape. He referred to Section 85 of the Countryside and Public Rights of Way Act 2000, stating that the committee has a duty to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.
• Clive Gallagher, chair of Wendover Parish Council, stated that the proposed Dobbins Lane access is unpopular locally, citing a petition with 816 signatures and 140 written responses objecting to the access arrangements. He argued that the Nashley End access route is a safer and cheaper alternative.
• Greg Smith, MP, stated that the application is wholly inappropriate and demonstrates the applicant's complete lack of willingness to consider an alternative route to access the spring chamber site.
• Mr Band, questioned why anything more than a simple upgrade of the existing farmer's track is necessary, arguing that the reference to construction design and management regulations to justify the permanent need for the track is erroneous.

Reasons for Refusal:

• The committee agreed with the landscape officer's assessment that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the protected Chilterns National Landscape¹ that could be reasonably avoided or reduced.
• The committee felt that the proposed development had failed to take a landscape-led approach to embed measures in the design of the proposals that would further the aims of the protected National Landscape.
• The committee also expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed access route on highway safety, although they acknowledged that the highways officer had not raised any objections on these grounds.

Outcome:

The committee voted to refuse the application, with eight members voting against the proposal and one voting in favour. The reasons for refusal were based on the landscape and visual harms identified in the officer's report, as well as concerns about the lack of consultation with local residents and the failure to adequately consider alternative access routes.

Other Matters Discussed

• Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from Councillors Trevor Egleton, Jackson Ng, Richard Newcombe, Alan Turner and Michael Rand.
• Minutes of the Previous Meeting: The minutes of the Strategic Sites Committee meeting held on 14 March 2025, were approved as a correct record.
• Declarations of Interest: There were no declarations of interest.