The Central and North Area Planning Committee of Buckinghamshire Council approved an outline planning application for 68 dwellings on land east of Worminghall Road, Ickford, despite significant concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council regarding flooding, infrastructure capacity, and conflict with the local neighbourhood plan. The committee voted six to five in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Outline Planning Application for 68 Dwellings at Land East of Worminghall Road, Ickford

The committee considered an outline planning application for 68 dwellings on land east of Worminghall Road, Ickford. The application was presented by Zainab Hearn, Strategic Technical Lead, and was recommended for approval by officers, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

Key Issues and Discussions:

• Flood Risk and Drainage: This was a major point of contention, with local residents and the Ickford Parish Council highlighting significant flooding issues in the village, exacerbated by previous developments. They argued that the applicant's drainage strategy did not adequately address the existing problems and that Thames Water's capacity was insufficient. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency had no objections, subject to stringent conditions being imposed. The committee debated the adequacy of the proposed drainage strategy, with particular focus on the discharge rate and the potential for increased flood risk downstream. An amendment was made to Condition 22 to clarify that the assessment should focus on the receiving watercourse at the point of discharge, rather than wider downstream infrastructure.
• Housing Land Supply and the Tilted Balance : A significant factor in the decision was Buckinghamshire Council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, meaning the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was engaged. This presumption in favour of sustainable development meant that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. This principle was central to the debate, with many councillors acknowledging that despite their reservations, the lack of housing land supply compelled them to approve the development.
• Conflict with the Ickford Neighbourhood Plan: The proposed development lies outside the settlement boundary defined in the Ickford Neighbourhood Plan, which was a key objection from the Parish Council and local residents. Officers noted that while this represented a conflict with the plan, the reduced weight afforded to housing-restrictive policies in neighbourhood plans due to the housing land supply shortfall meant this was not a decisive factor.
• Infrastructure Capacity: Concerns were raised about the capacity of existing infrastructure, including sewerage, water supply, and electricity. Thames Water confirmed that while the foul water system had capacity, the existing water network did not, necessitating a condition to ensure upgrades or a phasing plan were in place before occupation. The potential impact on electricity capacity for electric vehicle charging was also discussed.
• Transport and Accessibility: The Highway Authority raised no objection, subject to conditions and Section 106 contributions. Proposed improvements included pedestrian and cycle links, off-site footway and crossing improvements, and a contribution towards local bus services. However, concerns remained about the safety of pedestrian access along Worminghall Road and the impact of increased traffic on narrow village roads.
• Affordable Housing and Housing Mix: The proposal included 29% affordable housing (20 units), exceeding the policy requirement. The mix of market and affordable housing was discussed, with some discrepancies noted against local needs assessments, but considered acceptable at this outline stage.
• Environmental and Ecological Impact: The development was assessed as having limited ecological value, with proposals for biodiversity net gain exceeding the statutory minimum. Conditions were recommended to secure ecological enhancements and protection measures. The loss of Grade 3a agricultural land was noted as a negative consideration, but considered negligible in the context of the overall district.
• Heritage and Archaeology: The proposal was considered not to harm the setting of the Grade II listed building at No. 64 Worminghall Road or the character of the Ickford Conservation Area. Archaeological investigations identified buried remains and ridge and furrow earthworks, with mitigation secured by condition.
• Developer Contributions: A Section 106 agreement was required to secure contributions towards affordable housing, public open space, play provision, sport and recreation facilities, sustainable transport, education, and healthcare.

Decision:

The committee voted by six votes to five to approve the officer's recommendation to defer and delegate the decision to the Service Director of Planning and Environment for approval, subject to:

• Publicising the application as a departure from the Development Plan.
• Having regard to amendments received.
• Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement.
• Subject to the proposed conditions, with any amendments or additions considered appropriate by Officers.
• Receipt of no new material representations, or if they are not achieved, for the application to be refused for such reasons as the Service Director considers appropriate.

Several councillors expressed their discomfort with the decision, highlighting the conflict between local concerns and national planning policy, particularly the housing land supply situation. Councillor Raj Khan BEM stated they would vote against the recommendation, feeling compelled to do so due to the lack of infrastructure and flooding concerns, and that it was morally uncomfortable to simply rubber-stamp the proposal. Councillor Gregory Smith also expressed significant concerns about flooding and the reliability of Thames Water, urging for the removal of the phased approach option in Condition 31. Councillor Frank Mahon, the Vice-Chairman, ultimately proposed acceptance of the officer's recommendation, acknowledging the weight given to housing delivery under the tilted balance.