Land Adjacent 166 Cock Lane, High Wycombe, HP13 7EA

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard to its position within the adopted site allocation (Gomm Valley and Ashwells) in the local plan and the comprehensive development of this allocated site, with particular regard to protected trees, green infrastructure and character
• whether the proposed development would comprise high quality design, having regard to local character and safety
• whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to private garden space
• whether the proposed development would provide inclusive development, having regard to the provision of accessible parking and homes
• whether the proposed development would be in an accessible location, avoiding reliance on the use of private cars
• whether the proposed development would satisfactorily incorporate renewable or low carbon energy resources
• whether the proposed development would provide suitable surface water drainage
• whether the proposed development would affect protected species
• whether the proposed development would deliver mandatory biodiversity net gain
• whether the proposed development should provide affordable housing
• whether the proposed development should make financial contributions towards transport and infrastructure provision

What decided it

The adverse impacts of the scheme, including loss of protected trees and green infrastructure, poor design and safety, lack of sustainable access, inadequate living conditions, and failure to secure necessary mitigation measures, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits of housing delivery in the context of the tilted balance.

The modest benefits of nine dwellings, economic benefits, and open space provision (moderate weight) were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by substantial harms including loss of protected trees and green infrastructure, poor design and safety concerns, lack of sustainable access forcing reliance on private cars, inadequate private amenity space, and failure to demonstrate protected species protection and biodiversity net gain (significant weight), such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.