The West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee met on Wednesday 29 July 2026 to discuss two planning applications. The committee resolved to refuse planning permission for a proposed housing development in Longwick due to concerns about its location outside the settlement boundary and the lack of a legal agreement to secure necessary infrastructure. The committee also approved a householder application for extensions at 226 Totteridge Road, High Wycombe, after considering the amended plans and the impact on neighbouring amenities.

Longwick Housing Development Refused

The committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the proposed development of 57 new homes at Chiltern, Thame Road, Longwick, application number PL254603/FA. The primary reason for refusal was the absence of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure essential infrastructure and affordable housing. This included contributions towards primary education, healthcare, public transport, open space, sustainable drainage, and biodiversity net gain.

In addition to the lack of a legal agreement, the committee also agreed to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposed development, by reason of its location outside the defined settlement boundary of Longwick, would result in the unjustified expansion of built development into the countryside on land not allocated for residential development. This was considered contrary to policies CP2 (Overall Spatial Strategy), CP3 (Settlement Strategy), and DM21 (Location of New Housing) of the Wycombe District Local Plan, and also contrary to the spatial policies of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan.

During the debate, councillors expressed significant concerns about the impact of the development on the character of the village, its infrastructure, and the principle of building on greenfield land outside the settlement boundary. Councillor Matthew Walsh, a local councillor, highlighted that Longwick had already doubled in size due to previous developments and that this application was not an allocated site within the neighbourhood plan. Greg Smith MP, for Mid-Buckinghamshire, also spoke against the application, describing it as purely speculative and arguing it would undermine the plan-led system. Objectors raised concerns about traffic, drainage, sewage issues, and the lack of local services.

Officers explained that while the development offered benefits, particularly in contributing to the council's housing land supply, these were outweighed by the harms arising from the lack of secured infrastructure and affordable housing. The council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply meant that the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development was engaged, but this did not override the fundamental planning policy objections.

High Wycombe Householder Extension Approved

The committee approved the application for a part first-floor side extension and a single-storey ground-floor rear extension at 226 Totteridge Road, High Wycombe, application number PL26/02426/FA. The decision followed the submission of amended plans which addressed initial concerns raised by neighbours and the case officer.

The amended plans included a staggered design for the first-floor extension with a reduced ridge height and a smaller gable end, aiming to improve the separation from the shared boundary with the neighbouring property at number 228 Totteridge Road. While a full one-metre separation was not maintained along the entire flank side due to the plot's tapered shape, officers concluded that the design, materials, and set-back of the extension would be sympathetic to the main dwelling and the locality.

Concerns raised by objectors regarding overlooking and loss of privacy were addressed by the proposal for high-level, obscure-glazed windows in non-habitable rooms, with conditions to ensure they remain non-opening. Councillors who attended the site visit, including Councillor Michael West and Councillor Clive Harriss, spoke in favour of the application, noting that the design had been carefully considered to minimise impact on the neighbour, particularly given the significant height difference between the two properties. They concluded that there were no material planning reasons to refuse the application.

The approved development is subject to several conditions, including those relating to the commencement of works, external materials, the obscure glazing of windows, and the protection of neighbouring property during construction.