The Buckinghamshire Council Strategic Sites Committee met to discuss an outline planning application for residential dwellings and elderly extra care accommodation on land adjacent to Amersham Road and Minerva Way in Beaconsfield. Councillors ultimately voted to refuse the application, citing concerns over Green Belt impact, landscape character, loss of agricultural land, the lack of a sequential test¹ and the absence of a signed section 106 agreement².

Here's a breakdown of the key topics discussed:

Beeches Park Planning Application

The committee considered application PL/25/0492/OA, an outline planning application for residential dwellings and elderly extra care accommodation on land adjacent to Amersham Road and Minerva Way, known as Beeches Park. The proposal included up to 330 dwellings, a 60-bed elderly care unit, mobility hubs, a community building, and public open space.

Arguments for approval:

• John Fannan, planning consultant for the council, argued that the site met the criteria to be identified as 'grey belt' land within the Green Belt, and that the revisions to the scheme addressed previous shortcomings identified by an inspector. He also noted the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, creating a demonstrable need for housing.
• Ed Barrett, planning director at Cancerby Estates, highlighted the public consultation process undertaken, the design quality of the proposals, and the provision of 50% affordable housing and extensive green space.

Objections raised:

• Joy Morrissey MP argued that the application failed to meet the high bar needed to release Green Belt land and that the case officer had made an incorrect statement in their report regarding the interpretation of the NPPF. She also raised concerns about the lack of infrastructure to support the development.
• Councillor Christina Darley objected to the application, stating that the site was not grey belt, was good quality agricultural land, and strongly performed Green Belt purposes. She also argued that the scheme did not provide genuinely affordable housing or infrastructure contributions.
• Councillor Jackson Ong urged the council to seek independent legal advice on the new grey belt policy and raised concerns about the impact on heritage, infrastructure, and the community.
• Councillor Paul Mason for Beaconsfield Town Council stated the land was Greenbelt and the application failed to meet the 'golden rules' as set out in paragraphs 156 and 7 of the NPPF.
• John Milne, speaking on behalf of the Beaconsfield Society, argued that the site strongly performed Green Belt purposes and that the harms outweighed any benefits.

School Provision:

• Paula Campbell-Balcombe, who manages the school commissioning team, provided an update on school projections, stating that primary schools in Beaconsfield were projected to be close to or slightly over capacity. However, she suggested that it would be possible to displace the majority of future non-Beaconsfield children back to their catchment schools. She also noted that secondary schools were currently operating at a 2% surplus, with projections indicating a likely deficit of places in the future.

Traffic and Highways:

• Councillors raised concerns about the impact of the development on local roads, particularly the A355 Amersham Road, and the safety of access points. They also questioned the validity of the traffic modelling data used in the application.
• James Duncan, lead officer in highways development management, explained the traffic modelling methodology and stated that the development did not meet the severe impact threshold for highways.

Legal Considerations:

• Councillors debated the interpretation of the NPPF and the grey belt policy, with some calling for independent legal advice.
• Catherine Stubbs, planning solicitor, clarified that the policy deals with decision making and that paragraph 155 of the NPPF overrides paragraph 142.

Decision:

• The committee voted to refuse the application.

Reasons for Refusal:

1. Impact on Green Belt openness and purposes, where the benefits do not outweigh the harms, and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated.
2. Impact on landscape character.
3. Loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
4. The absence of a sequential test.
5. The lack of a signed section 106 agreement to secure necessary infrastructure.

Declarations of Interest

Councillor Goughan declared that he had received some lobbying from the local ward member but still entered the meeting with an open and clear independent mind. Councillor Turner declared that he had also received a mailer from Cancerby Estates.