Property For Sale/To Let

People Search


Planning permission for extra care development in Buckingham won at appeal

Acting on behalf of Wadehurst Minton, Alder King Planning Consultants have secured planning permission for a 72 unit extra care scheme on the western edge of Buckingham.

The green field site is subject to various constraints, being located just outside Buckingham’s settlement boundary and also within 1,200 m of a conservation area associated with Stowe House and its historic park and gardens.

The planning application was initially refused permission by Aylesbury Vale District Council on the basis that the proposal was in conflict with Buckingham’s made neighbourhood plan.

Particular issues raised were the site’s location outside of Buckingham’s settlement boundary and also the failure of the scheme to provide an element of affordable housing.  Following the refusal, Alder King launched a planning appeal, arguing that Buckingham’s neighbourhood plan only dealt with traditional housing in a C3 use, with extra care development constituting a separate component of supply in a C2 use.

On this basis Alder King considered that the development plan was silent on the need for extra care development, including any policy requirement for it to make affordable provision and that it did not expressly prevent development beyond the settlement boundary.

Matt Halstead, partner at Alder King, said: “This planning application has been subject to a particularly protracted determination process with Aylesbury Vale District Council.  We are therefore delighted to have finally secured planning permission at appeal for much needed extra care development which will be of huge benefit for the local community.”

The Inspector agreed with all of Alder King’s principal arguments and concluded that the scheme should be determined on the basis of whether it constituted sustainable development. In this regard the Inspector concluded that the benefits of delivering much needed extra care development was significant, and outweighed the moderate harm resulting from development on a green field site. The appeal was upheld.

Share this article

Our Publications

Our case studies

Share this article