The West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee met on Wednesday 1 July 2026, approving an outline planning application for 19 apartments at 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe, after extensive debate on parking and highway safety. The committee also resolved to defer a decision on a proposed development of 20 dwellings at 16 High Heavens Wood, Marlow Bottom, to allow for further investigation into healthcare and secondary education contributions.

22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe

The committee granted outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 22 Marlow Hill, High Wycombe¹, and the erection of 19 apartments. This decision followed a lengthy discussion regarding concerns about parking provision, highway safety, and the impact on local infrastructure.

Councillor Lesley Clarke OBE, the ward councillor, raised concerns about the proposed 19 parking spaces, arguing that the Buckinghamshire County Council Parking Guidance² required 24 spaces for the mix of one and two-bedroom apartments, and that there was insufficient provision for visitors. She also highlighted that parking was already a significant issue in nearby residential areas, such as Poets Corner Estate, and that allowing this development could set a precedent for similar applications on adjacent sites. Councillor Clarke also noted potential issues with the existing sewer capacity on Marlow Hill.

The committee debated the methodology for calculating parking requirements, with officers explaining that the Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance³ uses habitable rooms rather than bedrooms as a metric, which is considered more robust and evidence-based. While some councillors expressed dissatisfaction with this approach, officers confirmed that it had been accepted on appeal in previous cases.

Highway safety was another key point of discussion, particularly in relation to the access and egress points for the development. Officers explained that while the Highway Authority had initially objected to the principle of intensified vehicle movements on Marlow Hill for a previous care home application on the site, a planning inspector had allowed an appeal against this objection. The current proposal was deemed to generate fewer vehicle movements than the approved care home, and the access design was considered acceptable and compliant with standards.

Despite concerns raised by some councillors about the potential for increased traffic and the impact on the local road network, the officer's recommendation to grant permission was ultimately approved. The decision was made by a vote of four in favour, with two abstentions, after a brief adjournment for councillors to discuss the matter further.

16 High Heavens Wood, Marlow Bottom

The committee resolved to defer a decision on the application for the redevelopment of 16 High Heavens Wood, Marlow Bottom⁴, for 20 dwellings. This deferral was specifically to allow for further investigation into contributions towards primary healthcare facilities and secondary education.

Councillor Alex Collingwood and Councillor Anna Crabtree, the ward councillors, had called in the application for committee consideration due to concerns about the density of the development, its impact on surface water drainage, and the strain on local infrastructure, including schools and healthcare services.

During the debate, Councillor Collingwood expressed disappointment that the education officers had not provided a full response, focusing only on primary education and not addressing the capacity issues at secondary schools such as Great Marlow School and Burford School, which were reportedly full. He also questioned the adequacy of the proposed developer contributions, stating that the £500,000 contribution, with £75,000 allocated to the parish council, was insufficient to address the cumulative impact of the development on local infrastructure.

Councillor Larisa Townsend proposed deferring the decision to allow for further exploration of the Integrated Care Board's (ICB) contribution requirements and the Secondary Education SIL⁵ (Section 106) requirement. Councillor Collingwood seconded this proposal, highlighting the need for clarification on these points. The committee agreed to delegate the decision-making on these specific issues to the Chairman and officers, with the intention of bringing the matter back to the committee with further information.

The development itself, which includes a mix of one, two, three, and four-bedroom dwellings, with seven affordable housing units, was generally considered acceptable in terms of design, layout, and environmental considerations, including biodiversity net gain and surface water drainage. However, the lack of clarity and perceived inadequacy of contributions towards healthcare and education services led to the deferral.