®Planning appeal decision
Land Adjacent to Amersham Road and Minerva Way, Beaconsfield, HP9 2RJ
Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of residential dwellings including affordable housing (Use Class C3), new vehicular access points off Amersham Road and the Eastern Relief Road, a local centre including a community building (Use Classes E(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), F1(d)(e), F2(a)(b) and C3), a primary school and pre-school (Use Classes E(f) and F1(a)), public open space and associated infrastructure
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Rose D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development, including its influence on the landscape setting of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
- whether the proposal would result in a well-designed place, with particular reference to the illustrative Masterplan and parameter details of layout, land use, building heights, building density, movement and access, and green and blue infrastructure, in the context of its interface with existing townscape, movement corridors and open land uses
- the impacts of the proposed development on European Protected Sites and Species; non-European Protected Reptiles; and badgers taking account of intended mitigation/offsetting measures and proposals for Biodiversity Net Gain
- whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, combined with landscape/design harm and ecological harm, was not clearly outweighed by the benefits, so very special circumstances did not exist.
The substantial weight attaching to Green Belt harm, together with significant harm from poor design at key interfaces and habitat fragmentation, was not clearly outweighed by the very significant benefits of market and affordable housing, self-build provision, biodiversity net gain and economic benefits, so the balance tipped against the proposal.
Framework references: 137, 138, 147, 148, 125, 130, 179, 57
Plan policies cited: Policy GB1, Policy EP3, Policy EP4, Policy EP6, Policy H9, Core Policy 1, Core Policy 3, Core Policy 5, Core Policy 7, Core Policy 9, Core Policy 13, Core Policy 14, Policy TR5, Policy COM1
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.