Archived Page

This page is no longer maintained.
For up-to-date information please see the new website

Cliveden Enquiry

In the summer of 2004, the South Bucks Planning Committee refused an application by the National Trust and Countryside Properties to develop the site for 191 houses and flats, and in the autumn the applicants lodged an appeal against the decision. The appeal was heard at a local public inquiry at the beginning of August 2005 and the outcome is expected not earlier than the end of November. Indeed, it could be well into the autumn before a decision is reached. The final decision will be made by the Secretary of State after consideration of the Appeal Inspector's report.

The inquiry heard evidence from the applicants, South Bucks District Council, Taplow Parish Council and a number of Taplow residents.

The Applicants' case was based on a fallback argument: that the 191 scheme was an improvement on the extant 135 age-restricted scheme, which had been granted full permission at the same meeting at which the 191 scheme was refused. They claimed that:

It complies with the development plan.
It complies with the minimum density requirements for development of 30 houses per hectare.
It includes 42 affordable housing units, whereas the 135 scheme had none.
It would create a more mixed community than the 135 scheme.
It provides alternative means of transport by means of two minibuses dedicated in perpetuity.
It complies with the parking standards of an average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

South Bucks and Taplow Parish Councils based their opposition on the non-conformance with the development plan and car-dependant nature of the site, which has no realistic access to employment and services without the use of the car. Stating that although this was true of both the schemes, the existing 135 age-restricted permission would have a far lower environmental impact and be more sustainable than the open market 191 proposal. They argued that:

The intention of the development plan is to permit only a restricted housing use of the site.
The developable area, when necessary landscape buffers are taken into account, is 4.5 hectares, thus achieving the 30 dwellings per hectare direction with 135 dwellings.
The gain in affordable dwellings is a plus point but is insufficient to outweigh the inherently unsustainable location of the site.
'Mixed community' comprises far more than an economic mix of the occupants. Without any on-site shops, employment or facilities, the development would be simply a dormitory housing estate.
The two minibuses would not provide a realistic alternative to the car, given the multi-timed, multi-purpose and multi-directional nature of travel from the site.
The restriction of car-ownership could not be achieved simply by restricting the number of 'official' parking spaces, when the space available for parking could, and would be likely to, accommodate a far greater number.

The most telling outcome of the Inquiry was that both sides agreed that the 191 scheme would generate well over twice the number of vehicle trips than the 135 scheme, an increase vastly greater than the simple increase in numbers of dwellings.

In the opinion of both South Bucks District Council and Taplow Parish Council, the use of the fallback argument sought to divert the Inquiry from considering the 191 scheme on its own merits or in the light of up-to-date Government planning guidelines, where the overriding emphasis is on considerations of sustainability. It must be borne in mind that the extant 135 permission could not be refused on the grounds of unsustainabilty because the first outline permission had been granted in 1995, prior to the recognition that sustainability is one of the key issues of modern planning. Neither of the schemes would be acceptable, from a standing start, in today's terms, but the 135 age-restricted scheme is less harmful than the 191 unrestricted scheme.

Footnote: Those who are members of the National Trust will have received recently the notice of the National Trust AGM at which there will be a debate on a members' resolution seeking to reduce car trips to National Trust properties. It is revealing to contrast arguments put forward by the QC representing the National Trust at the inquiry and the statement by the Council of the National Trust printed in the notice of the AGM.

At the appeal inquiry, the availability of the minibuses was advanced as a strong argument to compensate for the inaccessibility of the Cliveden site. In contrast the National Trust Council's statement in the notice of the AGM, under the heading 'The Wider Context', states:

"Most people are so used to travelling by car that providing alternatives to using the car is not enough to change their behaviour"

They can't have it both ways.