29 August 2021
Follow me @Linda Derrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
Bucks Council says there was a 30% increase in planning applications during the months of COVID lockdown and it certainly feels like there are more and more planning applications in Hughenden.
In my blog below of 31 July, I mentioned three planning applications to be considered at the meeting on 16 August of Hughenden Parish Council’s Planning Committee. I selected these because I thought they would be of interest more widely than just their immediate neighbours.
Here’s what is happening to these and two other applications. I have tried to report factually but my apologises in advance if I have got anything wrong. And I must say it was really good to see so many residents at the meeting; it is a pity that their contribution has to be limited to 15 mins in total and 2 minutes each.
1. Terriers Farm, Kingshill Road
This is an application for 418 homes in fields on the corner of Kingshill Road and the A404 opposite the Wellesborne development (where the cars park on the pavement). It is right on the border of Hughenden parish and will have a considerable adverse impact, particularly on Four Ashes and the rest of Widmer End.
I and other residents urged HPC’s Planning Committee to take at least a preliminary look at the application at its meeting on 16 August. However, we were told there would not be enough time.
The only item on the agenda relating to this development was to decide which councillor would represent HPC at the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting which Hazlemere Parish Council has organised for 31 August.
Hugh McCarthy, the Vice Chairman of Widmer End Residents’ Association, spoke at HPC’s Planning Committee meeting as a member of the public. He emphasised the importance of this application; it would increase pressure on facilities in Hughenden, threaten the environment around Four Ashes and Widmer End (where HPC own land) and create a rat run through the villages. He repeated WERA’s request for Hughenden PC to hold an Extraordinary Meeting about Terriers as Hazlemere PC is doing.
I supported this request but the Planning Committee decided against it.
Cllr Nicholls proposed that Cllr Kearey (who is not on the Planning Committee) should represent Hughenden PC at Hazlemere PC’s meeting. As I am on the Planning Committee and represent Widmer End which will be worst affected, I proposed myself. The Planning Committee agreed that we should both go to the Hazlemere PC meeting and represent Hughenden Parish Council.
Since then, residents have asked if Hughenden PC could set up a working group to consider the implications for Hughenden of the Terriers development. I supported this proposal but there has been no response from other councillors. I then volunteered to chair such a working group but again have had no response.
The deadline for comments by residents to Bucks Council on this application is 2 September. Both parish councils have extensions of the deadline to give them time to comment.
2. Field Farm, on the corner of Spurlands End Road and Windmill Lane
This planning application is for a change of use on a gypsy/traveller site to accommodate the siting of another mobile home and touring caravan as well as the conversion of an existing barn into a dayroom.
Marianne Tyler, the Secretary of Widmer End Residents’ Association, spoke about this application as a member of the public. She pointed out that there was no information from Bucks Council about restrictions on the site such as the number of permissible units and access rights; and that converting the barn into a dayroom opened up the potential for it to also become an additional residential unit. WERA recommended that HPC call in the application.
I supported WERA’s comments and the Planning Committee objected to the application.
During the discussion it was clear that there was confusion as to whether this was a temporary rather than a permanent gypsy/travellers site.
In view of the confusion, I urged the Planning Committee to accept WERA’s recommendation and call the application in using the parish councils’ new powers. However, the Committee decided instead that it would ask our local BC councillors to call in the application. It now appears that the councillors did not respond and the application has not been called in.
3. Anns Cottage, Naphill Common
This application is for the demolition of an old two bedroomed cottage left derelict for some years and the construction of a five bedroomed house. The only access to the site is via a track through the adjoining allotment site.
A number of residents from Naphill and allotment holders objected to the development on the grounds of over development, harm to the environment and the disruption and pollution of the allotments by increased traffic from the development, including during construction.
This allotment site is one of the sites which Hughenden Parish Council believes is owned by a charity called Hughenden Community Support Community (HCST). HPC intends to transfer the title to the site to HCST and lease back the land for the allotments. I believe this allotment site is owned by HPC and have opposed the transfer of the land (see my blog below of 1 July).
One of HCST’s trustees spoke as a member of the public stating that that HCST is the owner of the adjoining allotment site and that the track to Anns Cottage is a footpath, not a track for vehicles.
The trustee has also submitted three separate comments on the development to Bucks Council asking that HCST be recognised as the owner of the allotment site by BC and Transport for Bucks. He has also submitted the restrictions HCST would require on access to the development via the track.
When we came to the item on the agenda, Cllr Hardinge left the room declaring a conflict of interest and Cllr Nicholls took over as chairman.
I pointed out that Council had had no substantive information about the transfer of the land, at least not since I became a councillor. I asked if the title of the land had been transferred by the Land Registry from HPC to HCST. The Clerk said the transfer of title had not taken place. I asked if the lease on the land had been signed and registered with the Land Registry. The Clerk said the lease had been signed this month but had not been registered.
I then attempted to point out that the Land Registry had already declined to register the lease before the title was transferred. I would then have asked where that left HPC? Was HPC the landowner of the allotment site (as I believed)? Or the leaseholder (as the Council believed)? Or neither? And who would the developer be negotiating with? And who would BC and Transport for Bucks recognise as the land owner?
However, I was told by Cllr Nicholls and the Clerk that these were not material considerations for the planning application and I could not ask these questions.
So I have taken the questions up subsequently with the Council.
I have suggested that if this development is approved, HPC will need legal advice on the specific ownership question for this site. I also asked that, contrary to present practice, Council should decide what advice it needs and who should provide it, rather than the Clerk and Cllr Nicholls.
I also suggested that HCST might need legal advice. Up to now, HPC has paid for all HCST’s legal advice in transferring the land – many thousands of pounds. I said I think this should now stop. In relation to Anns Cottage, there is a clear conflict of interest between HPC and HCST’s interests and HCST should pay for its own legal advice.
I have had no response.
In the meantime I pointed out at the meeting that, according to the Land Registry, this track is not a footpath. This is what the entry on the Land Registry says:-
“B Proprietorship Register
This register specifies the class of title and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the right of disposal.
Title absolute
PROPRIETOR: HUGHENDEN PARISH COUNCIL
C Charges Register……
2. The land tinted blue on the title plan is subject to a right of way at all times and for all purposes with or without vehicles in favour of Anns Cottage, Naphill Common. The extent of this right, having been acquired by prescription, may be limited by the nature of the user from which it has arisen.”
I am happy to provide a full copy of the entry on request.
I believe HPC is the owner of the allotment site and it is responsible for any negotiations about access to the development site.
4. Application to increase permitted HGV movements by 80/day from Wycombe Recycling Ltd, at Binders Yard on Cryers Hill Road.
HPC had already objected to this application and it had been called in by our local councillors. The Planning Committee agreed Cllr Nicholls, who represents Great Kingshill, should speak at BC’s planning committee the next evening on behalf of HPC.
BC’s officials had recommended approving the application on the grounds (in my words) that the traffic around this area was already so bad that a bit more wouldn’t make much difference.
80 more HGV journeys a day is 24,000 more HGV journeys a year. I think, however bad the traffic is, 24,000 more HGV journeys will make a difference, particularly down country roads. And if it is so bad, then all the more reason to keep HGV traffic restricted.
BC’s planning committee agreed to defer a decision pending more information from a traffic survey. I have thanked everyone who spoke against the application, particularly the representative from Great Kingshill Residents’ Association. This is not just about Great Kingshill; the HGV traffic also goes through Widmer End and Hughenden Valley.
5. Application for the erection of a storage shed and gravelled area for the maintenance of the existing orchard and for bee-keeping on land at the junction of Kingshill Road and Church Lane at Four Ashes.
I have included this application because it is typical of applications on AONB/Green Belt land. This is only a shed you might think. But this would be a pretty big shed (about 8 metres long by 6 metres wide) and the land owner had already started to clear the woods with machinery.
Marianne Tyler, the Secretary of WERA, asked the Planning Committee to object to the application. She said it was misleading and had several inaccuracies, including that the land is no longer an orchard but actually woodland and that the access said by the applicant to be for vehicles is only a footbridge – and is in any case not owned by the applicant. No mention was made in the supporting documentation that the land is in a conservation area and lies entirely within AONB and Green Belt.
Mrs. Tyler also asked the Planning Committee to support a letter from WERA to Bucks Council asking that the woodland areas within this conservation area be granted an official designation as protected woodland or, at the very least, have a blanket Tree Preservation Order.
The Planning Committee objected to the application and said it would support WERA’s letter to BC.
Comments