The East & South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee of Buckinghamshire Council met on Tuesday 13 October 2026. The committee resolved to refuse a retrospective planning application for two gypsy and traveller pitches on land off Hog Lane, Ashley Green, citing concerns over Green Belt policy, sustainability, and the intentional breach of planning control. The committee also resolved to refuse a change of use application for a place of worship/community facility at Adbox, 80 High Street, Iver, due to concerns about highway safety, parking, and the lack of a comprehensive parking survey.

Land off Hog Lane, Ashley Green

The committee refused planning permission for the retrospective application for two gypsy and traveller pitches on land off Hog Lane, Ashley Green. The decision was made on the grounds that the development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, failed to meet sustainability requirements under NPPF Policy HO12.1.b due to concerns about the safety of children travelling to school, and that substantial weight should be given to Policy DM8 regarding the intentional breach of planning control. The committee also cited harm to the rural setting and the lack of very special circumstances to outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt. A further reason for refusal was the lack of a Section 106 agreement to mitigate harm to the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation.

During the debate, Councillor Martin Tett CBE expressed significant concern about the retrospective nature of the application and the perceived lack of weight given to Policy DM8. Councillor Mark Roberts echoed these concerns, particularly regarding the failure to meet Policy HO12.1.b and the implications of Policy DM8. Councillor Jonathan Waters highlighted the dangers of the local road network for pedestrians, especially children, and the lack of sustainability of the location. Councillor Jackson Ng raised technical questions about the council's shift in position on the grey belt designation of the land and the implications of changes to the NPPF. The applicant's agent, Nathaniel Green, argued that the site did not contribute to Green Belt purposes and that there was a significant unmet need for traveller pitches, which should weigh in favour of the application.

Adbox at 80 High Street, Iver

The committee refused planning permission for the change of use of part of the ground floor at Adbox, 80 High Street, Iver, from retail (Class E) to a place of worship/community use (Class F). The refusal was based on the lack of evidence demonstrating sufficient parking provision for the proposed use, which could lead to vehicles stopping on the highway and create an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The committee also cited concerns about the cumulative impact of traffic and parking on the local highway network, particularly given the site's location at a busy junction. The refusal was also based on the potential detriment to the character and amenities of the locality due to traffic and parking impacts, contrary to Local Plan Policy EP3 and NPPF Policies TR4 and TR6.

During the debate, Councillor Mark Roberts proposed approving the application, citing the officers' advice that the proposal would not result in a worse parking situation than the existing lawful use. However, Councillor Martin Tett CBE expressed strong reservations about the location and the potential for exacerbating existing parking and traffic problems. Councillor Clive Harriss also voiced concerns about the suitability of the location for a place of worship, citing safety and character issues. Councillor Wendy Matthews highlighted the lack of readily available public parking and the fact that the existing car parks were private. The Chairman, Councillor David Moore, ultimately voted in favour of refusal, stating that the lack of evidence regarding parking and the potential impact on highway safety was a deciding factor. The applicant's agent, Shabazz Khaliq, had argued that the proposal would provide a valuable community facility and that highway and parking impacts had been professionally assessed, with the Highway Authority raising no objection.