®Planning appeal decision
Verney Close Family Practice, Verney Close, BUCKINGHAM, MK18 1JP
the removal of existing development and the construction 1 residential building comprising 4 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats with off street parking, bin storage and bicycle storage
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Gilbert-Wooldridge T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposed development on the provision of community facilities and employment
- whether the proposed development should make provision towards off-site sports and leisure facilities
- the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Candleford Court and future occupies of the development, with particular regard to privacy
- the effect of the proposed development on flood risk
What decided it
The unacceptable loss of a community facility (doctors surgery) with demonstrable local need, contrary to DLP Policy GP93, NDP Policy CLH4, VALP Policy I3 and NPPF paragraph 93, which was not adequately justified by evidence of non-viability or confirmed replacement provision.
The modest benefits of housing delivery, town centre location, effective use of previously developed land, and reduced vehicle trips were outweighed by the significant adverse effect on community facility provision and the failure to secure sports and leisure contributions.
Framework references: 20, 93, 81, 96, 159, 162, 130
Plan policies cited: Policy GP93, Policy CLH4, Policy I3, Policy GP17, Policy GP86, Policy GP87, Policy GP88, Policy CLH2, Policy I1, Policy I2, Policy DHE6, Policy GP8, Policy BE3, Policy I4
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.