The East and South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee met to discuss two planning applications. Permission was granted for the retention of two agricultural buildings at Oakmead in Taplow, but a variation to a condition relating to approved plans for an extension at Rotherfield, in Stoke Poges, was refused.

Rotherfield, Gerrards Cross Road, Stoke Poges

Councillors voted to refuse a variation to condition 8 (approved plans) of planning permission PL/22/0492/FA for alterations and extensions at Rotherfield, SL2 4EJ. The application sought to allow for corrected drawings of the development as built.

The committee refused the application, against officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

• The modern glazing was not in keeping with the traditional appearance of the non-designated heritage asset of Clevehurst Lodge, contrary to policy SP7 of the Stoke Poges Neighbourhood Plan.
• The large, unrelieved modern window in the front central gable was not sympathetic to the traditional windows within the street scene, which was contrary to the character assessment policies LB03 and LB04 of the Neighbourhood Plan.
• The additional bulk to the dwelling proposed on the side elevation was also contrary to SP6.
• The scale of the extension and its proximity to the neighbour was considered to be overbearing and to result in an unacceptable level of harm to the residential amenity of the neighbouring property, contrary to Policy EP3 of the Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Kaya Allnutt, Buckinghamshire Council Planning Officer, explained that the approved drawings of the previous application (reference: PL/22/0492/FA) incorrectly showed the location of the extended dwelling. The revised drawings sought to regularise changes to the ridge height of the dwelling, minor fenestration changes and minor enlargement to the garage extension.

Trevor Eagleton, representing Stoke Poges Parish Council, told the committee that the application had been a long saga of inaccurate drawings and information on the original application and numerous deviations from the approved scheme. He added that the application has a very high profile in Stoke Poges.

Mr Doug Piggott, an objector, said that the whole scheme was incorrectly placed on the site when compared to the submitted plans. He explained that the building is 1.5 metres further north and 1.75 metres further east than the original permission.

Guvir Choda, agent for the applicant, said that he had been appointed to rectify the previous errors by the last agent on this application. He said that the changes were limited in scale and did not result in any harm to the neighbouring amenity.

Councillor Phil Gomm asked about the errors made by the previous agent. Mr Choda said that the main error was the location of the building.

Councillor Jonathan Waters asked why the application was for a variation of condition rather than a full application. Ben Robinson, Buckinghamshire Council Planning Officer, explained that there is no statutory limit on the degree of change permissible to conditions under section 73, but the change must only relate to conditions and not to the operative part of the permission.

Councillor Wendy Matthews said that the large amount of plain glass in the front of the building seemed to stick out like a sore thumb.

Land at Oakmead, Ye Meads, Taplow

The committee voted to approve a retrospective application for the retention of two small, timber agricultural buildings at Land at Oakmead, SL6 0DH.

Kaya Allnutt, Buckinghamshire Council Planning Officer, told the committee that the application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, an Archaeological site and National Flood Zone 2. She said that the two small timber buildings provide for the protection of the tools and equipment used in the applicant’s forestry enterprise, and also provide protection from the risks of theft and tampering.

Matthew Grant, the applicant, told the committee that his family have owned the land for 75 years. He said that the existing agricultural barn became dilapidated and not fit for purpose. He added that he has been working there creating traditional green woodworking products.

Councillor Phil Gomm asked Mr Grant if he worked in agriculture. Mr Grant said that he was a bookkeeper.

Councillor Jonathan Waters said that he could see that the buildings have a clear purpose and fit pretty well within the countryside.

Councillor Wendy Matthews said that the construction of the buildings was amazing and that it behoves the council to support this sort of enterprise within Buckinghamshire.

Other Matters

Councillor David Moore, Chair of the East and South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee, noted that the next meeting would be on Tuesday 15 July 2025 at 6.30pm, and that the time had been changed to the evening to allow better attendance.