The East and South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee met on 15 July 2025 to discuss planning applications in the region. Councillors approved an outline planning application for 43 dwellings in Iver, and a permission in principle for seven dwellings in Little Chalfont. They also approved alterations to public conveniences in Beaconsfield.

Land Adjacent to 148 Swallow Street, Ivor

Councillors voted to defer and delegate to the Director of Planning and Environment to grant outline planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of up to 43 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping on land adjacent to 148 Swallow Street, Ivor. This was subject to conditions and the completion of a planning obligation to secure affordable housing, open space, and financial contributions towards healthcare and air quality mitigation.

Richard Regan, a planning officer, introduced the item, noting that 11 further letters of support had been received since the committee report was published, as well as a statement of community support from the applicant. He explained that the application sought outline planning permission, with only access to be considered at this stage. All other matters, including layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, were reserved.

Mr Regan said that the Council's highways officer had assessed the application and raised no objections to the proposed access arrangements. He added that the site is located within the Green Belt, and that policy GB1 of the local plan is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He said that paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF set out the exceptions for when development in the Green Belt is acceptable and would not constitute inappropriate development.

Councillor Patrick Allen of Ivor Parish Council spoke against the application, raising concerns about light pollution, flooding, parking, and a lack of community engagement. Mr and Mrs Malin, who live on Swallow Street, also spoke against the application, raising concerns about the loss of green space, the impact on wildlife, and flooding. Mrs Malin said:

Greenbelt villages such as Ivar are a barrier to the urban sprawl of Uxbridge and Slough. They won't be villages for long. They'll become towns.

Millie Dodd, an account director at Just Build Homes, spoke in support of the application, saying that it would provide much-needed affordable housing for local people. She said that her organisation had engaged 39 local people who supported the application. Councillor Waters asked Ms Dodd who she was representing, and if she was independent from the developer. Ms Dodd confirmed that she worked with developers to help engage supportive voices in the planning process, and that the study was paid for by the applicant, Horwich Strategic Land.

Stefania Petrosino, the planning agent for the application, spoke in support of the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission. She said that the applicant, Horwich Strategic Land, is part of the WE Black Group of Companies, a local house builder who has delivered many schemes in Buckinghamshire across recent decades. She added that the application would result in significant benefits, including the delivery of much-needed market housing, the provision of 50% affordable housing, and the provision of high-quality open space.

Councillor Waters raised concerns about flooding, the mix of affordable housing, and the amount of open space. Councillor Kelly asked for evidence of the 146 jobs that the agent claimed would be created. Councillor Un asked why people would want to live in Ivor when they could move to Slough or West London. Councillor Wilson asked what steps the developer had taken to identify brownfield sites first.

Officers confirmed that the lead local flood authority was satisfied that an appropriate drainage strategy could be implemented on the site to prevent surface water flooding. They also confirmed that the application needed to provide 50% affordable housing in accordance with the golden rules, and that the applicant had agreed to this.

Councillor Wilson said that the new MPPF had put both officers and members of the planning committee in a difficult position. Councillor Hogg said that based on the vague definition of grey belt, it was hard not to go for some sort of conditional permission. Councillor and said that the approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent for ad hoc Green Belt release across the county.

Land to the North of Long Walk, Little Chalfont

Councillors voted to grant permission in principle for seven dwellings on land to the north of Long Walk, Little Chalfont, subject to a condition that a technical details consent application be submitted and determined within three years.

Melanie Beech, a planning officer, introduced the application, explaining that it followed a previous application for permission in principle on the site, which was refused because it did not meet the 'golden rules' requirements for affordable housing or open space. She said that the current application had addressed this by providing two affordable housing units and 740 square kilometers of public open space.

Councillor Martin Tett, a ward councillor, spoke against the application, saying that the decision to release the land from the Green Belt was not plan-driven, and that the land was not sustainable. Jane Maiden, representing objectors, said that the site was not sustainable and that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of Long Walk. Mark Longworth, the agent for the application, spoke in support, saying that the application complied with the golden rules and would provide much-needed housing.

Councillor Waters asked about the sustainability of the site and the maintenance of the open space. Councillor Hogg asked how the development would avoid parking on Swallow Street. Councillor Un asked what steps the developer had taken to identify brownfield sites first.

Officers confirmed that the lead local flood authority was satisfied that the application had demonstrated that it was capable of incorporating an appropriate surface water drainage strategy. They also confirmed that the application would provide 50% affordable housing, and that the applicant had agreed to this.

Councillor Hogg said that he did not deem the location to be sustainable, and recommended refusal. Councillor Waters said that it was absolutely irrelevant that the other application had not been built, and that the committee did not have the choice to go back over everything else. Councillor Wilson said that he fundamentally had a problem with the sustainable transport piece of this, but that it was difficult to consider an alternative.

Public Convenience, Windsor End, Beaconsfield

Councillors voted to approve an application to reconfigure the internal layout of public toilets at Windsor End, Beaconsfield, from one male, one female and one DDA toilet to four self-contained toilets including one DDA Dementia Friendly facility and store room. The application also included alterations to the front face of the building for a new door configuration, and the relocation of the electrical mains cupboard.

Rachel Steele, a planning officer, introduced the application, explaining that the site was located within the Beaconsfield Old Town Conservation Area and was adjacent to a number of listed buildings. She said that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area, nor would it harm the setting of any listed buildings.

There were no speakers on this item, and no questions from councillors.