The Central and North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee met to discuss an outline planning application for up to 36 dwellings on land off Barnett Way in Bierton. The committee ultimately resolved to defer and delegate the decision to the Service Director of Planning and Environment for approval, subject to the satisfactory completion of a publicity period, a Section 106 agreement, and agreed conditions.

Outline Planning Application for Land off Barnett Way, Bierton

The committee considered an outline planning application for up to 36 dwellings, including public open space and sustainable drainage systems, on land off Barnett Way, Bierton. The application, which had been called in by Ward Councillors Julie Ward and Kathy Gibbon, was for a site located outside the development boundary defined in the Bierton Neighbourhood Plan and was not allocated for development in the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP).

Officers presented the application, highlighting that while the proposal conflicted with local planning policies regarding development in the countryside and settlement character, the council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply triggered the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Significant amendments had been made to the original proposal, reducing the number of dwellings and relocating the built form to address concerns regarding landscape, heritage, and visual impacts.

During the meeting, extensive debate took place regarding the development's potential impacts. Councillor Julie Ward and Councillor Kathy Gibbon, along with representatives from Bierton Parish Council and the Bierton Action Group, voiced strong objections. Key concerns raised included:

• Conflict with Planning Policy: The site's location outside the Bierton Neighbourhood Plan's development boundary and the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan's spatial strategy was repeatedly cited.
• Landscape and Visual Impact: Objectors argued the development would cause significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the site and the surrounding countryside, impacting views and the settlement identity of Bierton.
• Infrastructure Strain: Concerns were raised about the capacity of local infrastructure, including GP surgeries and schools, which were described as already oversubscribed. The adequacy of bus services and the safety of local roads, particularly Barnett Way, were also questioned.
• Heritage and Ecology: The impact on the Bierton Conservation Area, Barnett House (a non-designated heritage asset), and the loss of ridge and furrow earthworks were highlighted. Concerns were also raised about the proximity to the Bierton Pits SSSI and potential impacts on wildlife, including great crested newts and badgers.
• Traffic and Access: The suitability of Barnett Way as an access point for a development of this scale, especially during construction, and the potential for increased traffic congestion on the A418 were significant concerns.
• Loss of Agricultural Land: The development would result in the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, described as Best and Most Versatile.

Representing the applicant, Storey Homes, Mr. Whiskart, Seed, and Bennett, highlighted the significant revisions made to the scheme to address concerns, including reducing the number of dwellings and containing the development behind an existing hedgerow. They emphasised the delivery of much-needed housing, including affordable homes and bungalows, and the substantial financial contributions towards local infrastructure. They argued that the revised scheme had materially reduced impacts and that the benefits, including addressing the housing land supply shortfall, outweighed the identified harms.

Following extensive debate and technical questions, the committee voted to defer and delegate the decision to the Service Director of Planning and Environment for approval, subject to the satisfactory completion of a publicity period as a departure from the Development Plan, a Section 106 agreement, and agreed conditions. This decision was made despite significant opposition from local representatives and residents, largely influenced by the council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which under the NPPF, necessitates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Councillors acknowledged the substantial harms identified, particularly regarding landscape and heritage, but concluded that the public benefits, especially the delivery of housing, outweighed these concerns.