Until Tuesday September 2nd, residents of Prestwood have their chance to comment on a planning application for 18 dwellings, including 9 affordable units, on Greenlands Lane (PL/25/1732/OA).
Whether you object to this planning application, or have a more positive view, the ramifications for our community and beyond are such that we encourage as many residents as possible to comment.
Below we set out PCA’s reasons for objecting, approved by a majority of the PCA’s Committee. We start by explaining some of the background to this application, but you can use this link to jump straight to PCA’s view.
Here’s How to Submit Your Comment
You can e-mail Planning.appeals.csb@buckinghamshire.gov.uk
Use the reference PL/25/1732/OA, and be sure to make clear your stance (Object/Support/Neutral)
Or visit the Buckinghamshire Council web portal, at https://pa-csb.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/online-applications/
To make a comment you must be registered, and logged in.
Click ‘Search’ on the main menu, then -> Planning -> Simple Search, type in the reference PL/25/1732/OA -> ‘Make a Comment’
You will be asked what TYPE of commenter you are (select from drop-down list), then your stance (Object/Neutral/Support), and then there is a field for your comments.
Because of time-outs, if you want to make a long comment, you are advised to prepare your text beforehand, and copy/paste.
Background: Previous Applications and Refusals
This site (Land Adjacent To Hampden Farm Barn Greenlands Lane Prestwood HP16 9QX) has been the subject of several planning applications in the past, notably:
PL/21/1676/OA: Outline application for the erection of 12 dwellings including 5 affordable homes, and the conversion of stables block to provide a further 1 dwelling.
PL/21/4751/OA: Outline application for the erection of 10 dwellings including 4 affordable homes.
PL/23/0377/OA: Outline application for the erection of 4 detached dwellings and garaging.
The first two applications were refused by Buckinghamshire Council, in notices dated 9th August 2021 and 5th April 2022, and heard together at appeal, where again they were refused. Buckinghamshire Council’s decision was based mainly on the substantial harm and severely detrimental impact these proposals would cause to the Green Belt and within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Among other considerations were the proximity of the site to ancient woodland (Lodge Wood), and the lack of information as to whether the scheme was capable of providing a biodiversity net gain.
Reasons for refusal given by the Inspector appointed by The Secretary of State were substantially the same as had been given by Buckinghamshire Council. The analysis considered at length the BALANCE of potential benefits and harms, and concluded:
“the harms to the Green Belt, the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, biodiversity and associated conflicts with LP and CS policies would be collectively overwhelming…
A further appeal was considered in 2023 for PL/23/0377/OA. This application had been refused by Buckinghamshire Council, and was refused again at appeal. Whilst the reasons were substantially the same, careful reading suggests additional attention being given to biodiversity improvement metrics.
The current Application – PL/25/1732/OA
The current scheme, PL/25/1732/OA, is for a LARGER number of dwellings: “Outline application for the erection of 18 dwellings including 9 affordable units”.
Careful study of the legal opinion submitted by the applicants suggests that their argument rests on asserting the following ‘new’ circumstances:
a) the site should be re-examined in light of the new (December 2024) policy position detailed in the new NPPF, in particular in relation to the Green Belt.
b) housing needs within Buckinghamshire have become even more acute, and the fact that this site is now shown in the online call for sites map, as Previously Developed Land, shows that it should be reconsidered.
Extract from the applicants’ legal opinion:
“In simple terms reliance on the Development Plan, especially in relation to the application of Policy relating to residential development in the Green Belt, in respect of any application now being made will be of limited relevance and weight. A simple examination of that replacement guidance suggests very strongly that sites of the type and nature of the one I am considering will carry great weight and have a strong likelihood of being successful in achieving a consent.”
“In short, the new NPPF requirements in my view provide a very different policy base to apply which if followed properly would provide strong encouragement for the Site to be brought forward and further that it should seek to achieve the maximum possible density.”
The reference to achieving the maximum possible density is especially chilling, and probably explains why this application is for a greater number of units than any of the previous three. An increase in the number of affordable units to 50% is clearly driven by the new ‘Golden Rules’ now governing development within the Green Belt.
Prestwood Community Association (PCA)’s view
Proposals for this site have been considered and rejected by Buckinghamshire Council and at appeal. Resoundingly, this has been on account of their adverse effects on the Green Belt and AONB, and on the rural character of the village.
The latest application seeks to take the new (December 2024) NPPF guidance, and assert that under the new exemptions from inappropriateness of development in the Green Belt, a compelling case can be made that this site should qualify for consent. Moreover, they are testing their assertion by stating that consent should be given for development at the maximum possible density.
Whilst the legal opinion naturally casts the application in the most favourable light possible, PCA has asked for the following to be considered:
Major development within National Landscape, and Green Belt
By the updated NPPF’s definition (Annex 2, Glossary), this is a major development with 10 or more homes.
The site is not simply within the Green Belt, but is within the Green Belt, which in turn is within a National Landscape.
Para 189 of the updated NPPF states that “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.”
Para 190 states “When considering applications for development within National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.”
Thus even under the updated NPPF, the applicants need to prove that THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT meets the standard of being exceptional, and in the public interest, when weighed against other considerations.
The consideration of the site’s brownfield status is in fact nothing new. In both previous appeals, it was noted that all parties accepted the classification as ‘previously developed land’. But the inspector noted that the site still contributes to the Green Belt appearance, and the site’s appearance as green landscape would be considerably reduced. The updated NPPF continues to state that “Planning policies and decisions should… recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production;”
The inspectors’ refusals noted that “…it should not be assumed that the whole of the land within the curtilage of developed land should be developed. In the absence of any indication to the contrary the proposal as a whole would occupy the full extent of the site. Consequently, the previously developed nature of the site attracts only limited weight here.” In this context, the inspector was commenting on a scheme of 4 dwellings, not the current 18. The updated NPPF continues to state that “it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed”.
Lack of biodiversity gains and provision of green spaces
PCA believes that there is an apparent contradiction between the ‘maximum possible density development’ called for by the applicants, and the now mandatory requirement for biodiversity gains.
Both previous appeal judgements questioned the achievability of a 10% biodiversity gain as required by the Environment Act 2021, in particular the later appeal. But they noted also that the schemes were submitted before the requirement became mandatory. As of early 2024, the requirement for a 10% biodiversity gain IS now mandatory, so applies to this application. The possibility of achieving this while also pursuing ‘maximum possible density’ should be tested carefully. The suggestion of purchasing offsite credits, whilst legal, does nothing to alleviate the harm to this site.
NPPF’s ‘Golden Rules’
The revised NPPF lays down three ‘Golden Rules’ which, if complied with, should give significant weight in favour of the grant of a permission. These are contained in paragraphs 156 and 157 of the NPPF, and the applicants’ legal opinion asserts that all three are met fully. But PCA believes this is not so clear cut.
NPPF para 156c requires “the provision of new, or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision, or through access to offsite spaces.”
The legal opinion focuses solely on second element, the provision for new residents. NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT THE PROVISION OF NEW, OR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING GREEN SPACES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. Since this proposal would occupy the whole site, where would this provision of new or improved green spaces accessible to the public be made?
Presumably this requirement is meant to compensate the public in some way for the loss of Green Belt space, and is therefore somewhat fundamental.
Requirement for additional local infrastructure?
Another Golden Rule, contained in paragraph 156b, call for “necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure“. Para 38 of the applicants’ legal opinion states: “…the second of the Golden Rules relates to necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure being provided. The proposals for the Site would not appear to give rise to any such requirement beyond its own access to the road network and any consequential improvements… It is therefore extremely hard to see what additional infrastructure would be required.”
This is evidently not the view of NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board, which states that the impact of this development cannot be absorbed by the nearby GP Practices.
Past consultations, including by PCA’s predecessor Great Missenden and Prestwood Revitalisation Group, have confirmed that the Green Belt, the AONB and the rural/village character are characteristics extremely highly prized by Prestwood’s residents. At the time of writing, more than 100 public comments have now been received by the Planning Portal (29th August), all but 3 are listed as objections, and none supporting.
There is widespread concern that, should this development be permitted, it will open the floodgates for further similar proposals around the village, with significant permanent potential change to the character of the village and its setting within The Chilterns National Landscape.
“The challenge with seeing housing almost entirely through the lens of growth is that the lens of place is forgotten”
Roger Mortlock, CEO, CPRE