Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed5 February 20243292202

Land to the South of Marsworth Road and West of Vicarage Way, Pitstone, Bucks, LU7 9TE

construction 21no. dwellings (8 flats and 13 houses), including associated works, car parking and landscaping

Authority
Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Nicholls H

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether or not the proposed location is suitable for housing, with particular regard to national and local policies for housing and community uses
  • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area
  • whether the proposal would include an adequate parking provision
  • whether the proposal would deliver enough adaptable and accessible units to accord with relevant local policies
  • the effects on the living conditions of future and existing neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and loss of outlook
  • whether the proposal would accord with local policies concerning its energy efficiency and carbon saving measures
  • whether or not infrastructure is included which is necessary, directly, fairly and reasonably related to support the scheme
  • the effects of the proposal on the SAC

What decided it

The lack of certainty regarding the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace mitigation and the absence of a defined SANG project meant the development would result in significant unmitigated effects on the integrity of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation, which is a protected area under the Framework and provides a clear reason for refusal that disengages the tilted balance.

The significant weight afforded to housing provision (including 8 affordable dwellings) and the modest economic benefits of construction did not outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan arising from unmitigated harm to the Special Area of Conservation, which is protected by policies and footnote 7 of the Framework.

Framework references: 11

Plan policies cited: Policy 2 of the Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 1 of the Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan, Policy I3 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy S1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy S2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy D3 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy 6 of the Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan, Policy T6 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy H6c of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy BE3 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy C3 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy I1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy I2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy H1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy H6a of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy S5 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, Policy NE1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan

Judgments cited: High Court Order Ref CO/1805/2023, dated 30.06.2023

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.