Current Planning Applications

63 Old Farm Pitstone Buckinghamshire LU7 9RD

28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 59, 61, 65, 67, 69, 71 Old Farm delivered 11 October 2024

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

122 Vicarage Road Pitstone Buckinghamshire

Delivered 20/9/24:

120, 124 Vicarage road
5,7,11,15,17 Tun furlong

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Land Adj The Duke Of Wellington Ph Cheddington Road Marsworth Buckinghamshire

Herne Cottage, Marsworth Road
2 Marsworth road

Cheddington road:
The cottage
Sunnyside
Greenways
2, 3, 4 Railway cottages
Braemar

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

This application site lies just outside our parish boundary, but any occupants of these dwellings will be closer to the village of Pitstone than they will to either the village of Marsworth (within whose parish the site lies) or Cheddington, and will predominantly rely upon Pitstone’s amenities etc.

The Parish Council advertises all applications on our web site, Facebook page, X feed and noticeboards. We also hand deliver letters to near neighbours.

The application was considered by the full council on 29/8/24. Council fully supports the stance being taken by our neighbouring parishes of Marsworth and Cheddington, and resolved to advise Buckinghamshire Council that it is opposed to this application on the following grounds:

• The application would constitute an increase of over 40% to the number of dwellings within the hamlet of Cooks Wharf.
• Occupiers of these properties would be largely dependent on car use due to the remote nature of the hamlet from Marsworth, Cheddington and the amenities in Pitstone/Ivinghoe, along with the restricted nature of public transport links already highlighted by other respondents.
• Concerns over both road safety and pedestrian safety – there being no uninterrupted footpaths and thus no safe pedestrian access to any of Pitstone, Cheddington or Marsworth.
• A consequent lack of easy access to the limited amenities in any of the 3 parishes other than by, in reality, the use of a motor vehicle.
• More widely, a lack of amenity infrastructure in the surrounding area – schools and doctor’s surgeries being particular examples.
• Questions over whether this site can be classed as sustainable given the above, along with a detrimental environmental impact should the proposals go ahead.

Should the Planning Authority nonetheless be minded to approve this application, the parish council would request Buckinghamshire Council include conditions to require (i) a footbridge over the canal/adjacent to the road bridge to enable safe access to Cheddington, and (ii) that a safe pedestrian corridor be provided to and underneath the railway bridge to enable safe access to Pitstone, in each case prior to occupation of any new dwellings commencing.

Land To The Rear Of 12 Marsworth Road Pitstone Buckinghamshire

Delivered 12/7/24 and 23/8/24
5, 10 Marsworth Road
2, 3, 4, 5, Farriers Corner
1-4 Forge Flats

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Numerous grounds

Amendments submitted by the developer and discussed at the 29/8/24 meeting, where PPC comments were:

The further revisions submitted by the agent were considered at the full parish council meeting on 29/8/24.

The Parish Council advertises all applications on our web site, Facebook page, X feed and noticeboards. We also hand deliver letters to near neighbours.

It was resolved to advise Buckinghamshire Council that the Parish Council remain opposed to this application as the changes submitted did not alter our previously submitted views. In addition, the council resolved to submit the following additional comments:

• It was noted that the ground levels have been raised for the site, and this raises concerns regarding potential flooding risk for numbers 10 and 12 Marsworth Road which will both then be at a lower level
• As previously advised (in response to both the original application and this revised one), the application site can not be considered infill, as there are no other properties fronting directly onto Marsworth Road within at least 400 yards of this site
• The parking provision remains a concern and we request that the planning authority note that the neighbourhood plan requires a minimum of two parking spaces (in addition to any turning/manoeuvering requirements that the LPA may require).

49 Tun Furlong, Pitstone, LU7 9GE

Delivered 12/7/24
47, 51 Tun Furlong
1, 4, 5 Rowland close

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Portland House on Westfield Road

Delivered 23/2/24:
1, 4, 5, 3, 10, 11, 16 Long Hale

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 Windsor Road

1 Browns Hedge

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

* BC to ensure sufficient parking provision for each of the proposed new units and the Portland House staff, and to consider if any parking restrictions are required on Westfield Road to ensure that there are enough passing places and that vision splays are maintained to ensure safe exit from both Portland House and Safran.
* BC to note that the route illustration shows HGV traffic exiting left & then turning right towards Ivinghoe, which would contravene the Ivinghoe Freight Zone. BC should satisfy itself that HGV traffic can safely exit right onto Westfield Road, and turn left into the site if travelling down from the Upper Icknield Way. To take the parked vehicles into consideration, and to review size/location of access, vision splays and any highway parking restrictions required to ensure safe use of the access.

Land To The Rear Of 87 Marsworth Road Pitstone LU7 9BA - revised application

Neighbour notifications (for this updated proposal) 19/1/24: Rushendon Furlong 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44, 46, 48,53,55,57; Marsworth Road 58,60,62,64,66,66A, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 Haldi, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95/Garage House, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107; Brookend, 1 high Street

Land R/O 12 Queen Street Pitstone Buckinghamshire LU7 9AU (amended application)

Neighbour notifications 16/11/23 and 24/5/24to:
* All of Queen Street (both sides)
* All of Cheyne Close (both sides)
* All of Grange Road
* Albion Road, up to Grange Road (both sides)
* Marsworth Road - section between Queen Street and Albion Road

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

The Parish Council advertises all applications on our web site, Facebook page, twitter feed and noticeboards. We also hand deliver letters to near neighbours.

The application was considered by the planning committee on 6/6/24 where it was resolved to advise Buckinghamshire Council that the Parish Council has no objections to the principle of this application (as now revised), but wished the Local Planning Authority to take the following comments into consideration:

• The reduction in dwelling numbers from 4 to 3 was welcomed, but those properties occupy the same footprint as previously as the built land has also reduced by a quarter, so the development still feels cramped.
• Please consider the impact on foul drainage and whether any improvements are required to the infrastructure.
• It was felt that the proposed bin storage and collection arrangements required review, as it was unlikely that the residents would use the designated rear bin store and it is understood that BC would be likely to require the bin collection point to be located at the front of the driveway adjacent to Queen Street as the positioning currently shown was too far from the road.
• Consider the situation at both ground and eaves level when assessing the useable space of the access road to ensure that the overhang on both properties is protected from vehicular damage.
• Ensure too that high enough curb edgings are provided along both sides of the access road where it runs between numbers 10 and 12 Queen Street to protect the flank walls and rooves of both properties.
• Consider the likelihood of parking ‘overspill’ onto Queen Street and any adjustments required to limit this.
• It was noted that the LPA had previously requested the replacement of the orchard trees and that the amended application showed a proposal, but it was felt that as the proposed planting may in fact be too dense to enable the long term life and growth of the proposed trees this should be assessed by the BC tree officer.

Land To The Rear Of 87 Marsworth Road Pitstone LU7 9BA

Neighbour notifications 17/3/23 & second letter 1/4/23: Rushendon Furlong 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,53,55,57; Marsworth Road 58,60,62,64,66,66A,68,70,72,74,76,78 Haldi, 87,89,91,93,95/Garage House,97,99,101,103,105,107;Brookend, 1 high Street

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

The Parish Council advertises all applications on our web site, Facebook page, twitter feed and noticeboards. We also hand deliver letters to near neighbours.

The application was considered by the full parish council on 30 March 2023 where it was resolved to advise Buckinghamshire Council that the Parish Council was opposed to the application in its current form.

It was recognised that the application does potentially comply with many of the requirements laid out in the Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan, however the following material points need to be considered when weighing the planning balance:

• Policy 6.iv of the Neighbourhood Plan states that development proposals will be supported provided that “where development could affect existing hedgerows or trees that contribute to Pitstone’s rural or village character their landscape schemes include their retention.” We consider that on a practical and purposive interpretation of the Policy, the words “existing … trees” must include those which would have still been ‘in situ’ had they not been pre-emptively felled in advance of the planning application being submitted. There was until recently a substantial and developed tree canopy, covering essentially the entire application site (see for example images on Google Earth dating from July 2021). The vast majority were removed during, it is believed, Q1 2022. These included a large and well-established walnut tree (the remains of which were still on site during our own site visit) along with, we understand, old apple trees. Orchards in particular are an important part of the Pitstone heritage – as recognised by our Neighbourhood Plan. It is understood that tree preservation orders were in the process of being sought, in relation to the site, at the time of the felling. It is our strong view that the application can only properly be considered against the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan (and, accordingly, approved or conditioned or refused) as if all the felled trees were still in place, despite the fact that they no longer are.

• Access is proposed off Marsworth Road, close to Brookmead School and Windmill PreSchool, and would cross the existing footpath. This is a stretch of narrow road, which is already heavily congested with traffic at school drop off and pick up times. The narrow footpath is heavily used by pre-school and primary school aged children walking/scooting to school both by themselves and with parents (depending on age). Whilst the Highways Authority believe that sufficient vision splays may be achievable we remain concerned about the safety of children and pedestrians given the potential volume of traffic movements arising from this number of properties, visitors, deliveries etc. There are existing issues with blocked access to Orchard Way (in the same vicinity) that ‘keep clear’ markings do not prevent and therefore anticipate that parents will also block access to these properties at peak times, preventing access by emergency vehicles / refuse collection vehicles (as well as by residents themselves).

• The provision of five dwellings feels an over development of this particular site, leaving parking provision for properties and visitors too tight. The proposed ridge heights and incorporation of 3-storeys to the 2 semi-detached properties seems to create too much massing for this enclosed space and create potential loss of privacy for existing near neighbours.

If the local planning authority is nonetheless minded to approve the application (in its current or any amended form), we would make the following submissions with regards to mitigation and related matters:

• As regards the felled trees, even if their removal had been permitted following an independent tree survey, offset or other mitigation requirements would undoubtedly have arisen (as for example per the 17/01871/APP development in Pitstone that required a replacement woodland to be planted to mitigate loss of woodland on the application site). The parish council feels very strongly that any stipulated mitigation should not only be assessed on the basis that the felled trees are still in situ; but also that it should be calculated prudently, i.e. erring towards giving each such tree the maximum potential ecological value that it could have had, given how the opportunity to have the extent of actual loss properly assessed has been denied to us. Mitigation must also, we hope it goes without saying, be provided within the parish and not elsewhere.

• There is currently a moratorium on the approval of any applications for new dwellings that cannot provide suitable mitigation measures in relation to the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. No mitigation proposals are included within the application. It is understood that the developer would seek to provide financial offset to Buckinghamshire Council instead for combined use elsewhere in the county. This would not be acceptable to the parish council and we feel strongly that mitigation should be provided within the parish (which stretches into Ashridge, the site of the SAC).

• The creation of access would leave the existing property at 87 Marsworth Road with no dedicated off-street parking (it currently enjoys at least 2 spaces on what would become the access road for the application site). This does not comply with Policy 6.v of the Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan, if and to the extent it applies to no.87 (which we consider it properly does). Even if it does not, development of the application site would create a requirement for displaced parking on Marsworth Road by the occupants of no.87, in what is already a heavily congested zone. The need for vehicular access to and sufficient off-street parking for 87 Marsworth Road would therefore also need to be addressed as part of the LPA’s decision.

Portland House Westfield Road Pitstone Buckinghamshire LU7 9GU

Neighbour notification to:
1, 3 Browns Hedge
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,15 Windsor road
1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 Long Hale

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Land Adjacent To Allotment Gardens Marsworth Road Pitstone Buckinghamshire

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Numerous grounds. See Buckinghamshire Council planning portal for full details.

Land To The South Of Marsworth Road And The West Of Vicarage Way Pitstone Buckinghamshire

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

Numerous grounds. See application on BC planning portal for full submission.

Land To The South Of Marsworth Road And The West Of Vicarage Way Pitstone Buckinghamshire

Note: Final decisions on planning applications are made by Buckinghamshire Council. Comments from PPC are taken into account when decisions are made.

See planning portal for full details of grounds