Letter to Adam Smith, Principal Planning Officer, August 2025 from the Ashwells Forum
Dear Adam,
Ashwells Fields, 18/05002/R9OUTE – Revisions to the reserved matters application
Many thanks for notifying members of the Ashwells Forum that an amended application had been submitted pursuant to this application.
The Ashwells Forum met on 6 August to review the amended application. Please find our comments below. These do include repeats of those we sent on 2 Dec 2024, but which do not appear to have been dealt with, and comments, both favourable and critical, on some of the recent amendments:
a) Affordable Home local connections – We understand that whilst the County has decided that local connection preference for rented homes cannot be closer than anywhere in Buckinghamshire, it is possible to allow shared ownership houses an immediately local connection and we strongly urge this be introduced.
b) Access via existing Ashwells road – JW mentioned that the existing Ashwells residents are trying to get agreement to a pinch point at the entry to the site by having a single lane with priority for incoming (to the new site) vehicles (priority against those leaving it).
c) Chepping Wycombe Parish Council reported that they have had no detailed discussion with the applicants about the Middle School drop-off/pick up despite the fact that they own the car park. It is essential to move this aspect forward as part of the s278 agreements.
d) Section 278 – As the original 12 March 2020 Approval now seems to being handled in two separate parts by two different groups (on site building by Hill Residential, local off site road works by CB / Bucks CC) it is essential that we are fully involved in the Section 278s covering the off-site road works as there are significant implications for the village: the New Road Scheme and the School Drop Off Scheme require full local consultation under Bucks’ own published Protocols for such roadworks, all the proposed schemes are not permitted in a no-street-lights policy area, and there are better and much safer ways (Puffin Crossing, etc) of meeting the requirements.
e) Visitor parking spaces – We have noted the argument which has resulted in an increase from 240 to 261 spaces, but that only 26 of these are for visitors. The total is still 20 spaces short of those requested by the Senior Highways Development Management Officer in her letter of 28 Jan 2024, and not nearly enough for 106 houses. The proposal to include “temporary informal on-street parking” to ameliorate the inadequate allocated visitor parking numbers, is unacceptable. We also urge that a condition be imposed that no garage can be turned into a habitable room, by means of a restrictive covenant in purchase agreements.
f) Local place and road names – We would like to see a condition requiring these.
g) Lighting and roads – We understand that no roads on site will be adopted and are pleased that no street lighting is confirmed by Carter Jonas. However, we note that section 18 of the 12 March 2020 Approval requires all “estate roads and footpaths designed to an adoptable standard”.
h) Traffic calming for both Cock Lane and New Road – These are part of the S278 matters and according to Bucks CC’s own Protocols there must be full local consultation on them.
i) Pumped Waste Sewer – The gentle curve in the bend in the pipeline near Carter Walk has been replaced by a series of sharp and dangerous changes of direction in order to make room for house B12. This needs to be confirmed as acceptable by Thames Water, or house B12 removed from the development.
j) 2.5 storey houses should not be placed on the edge of the site – the house at B12 is adjacent to and overlooking the flats of Ashwells Manor and its removal would also solve the dangerous directional diversion in the pumped sewer waste pipe (see i) above).
k) Pumped Sweet Water main – The developer still seems to be ignoring this, unless it has undisclosed plans to relocate the water main. The placing of houses just south of the exit to Ashwells Road pays no attention to the 3-5m ‘no build’ distances required on each side by Thames Water.
l) Housing style – We welcome the additional red brick to 43% and would prefer to see more. We welcome in principle, the proposal to introduce some design amendments to architectural detailing but need to see some drawings which illustrate them.
m) Frontage boundaries – we strongly support the requirement for walls or metal railings instead of close-boarded fences.
n) Solar panels – We note that some houses will have solar panels, but there is no detail of appearance, location or number of houses.
o) We note with concern the planning officer’s many criticisms and the applicant’s denials of cramped layout, deficient back-to-back distances, poor provision of street trees, driveway lengths tight, private drives very narrow, levels not in harmony with the underlying topography, a plot encroaching into existing trees. Our comments on these amended detailed matters of design are hampered by the fact that the earlier details are no longer to be found online.
p) Community consultation – We disagree with the applicant’s view that our concerns and suggestions have been fully addressed, since the revised application omits any reference to the vast majority of the previously submitted comments. Also, we note with sadness that the applicant does not see the need for any period of formal consultation on these amendments. After a promising start, there has effectively been no community consultation.
q) South East Corner road -The potential for access from the South-East corner of the Ashwells site to the adjoining Gomm Valley site should be deleted from the drawings. In this respect, the Amended Site Layouts, and Amended Landscape Masterplan as submitted, are unacceptable.