Up to 40 homes on Thame Road go to committee on 23 September. Officers back them, 48% affordable, despite objections from the MP, councillors and the parish.
Up to 40 homes on the edge of Longwick are recommended for approval on Wednesday night. The parish council objects. So do both ward councillors and the MP. The site is in neither the Local Plan nor the village’s own Neighbourhood Plan.
The application goes to the West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee at 6.30pm on Wednesday 23 September, in the council chamber at Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe. Longwick is a village outside Princes Risborough, on the A4129 Thame Road, and sits in the council’s Princes Risborough ward.
What is proposed
The application is outline, with everything reserved except the access onto the highway. Reference 25/06402/OUT, by Hawridge Strategic Land, for land described as OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road. It covers:
- demolition of the existing buildings, a stable and a barn
- up to 40 homes
- a new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Thame Road, the A4129
- landscaping and open space
Officers recommend that the decision be delegated to the Director of Planning and Environment for approval, once a legal agreement is signed. If it cannot be signed, the recommendation is refusal.
The affordable housing figure
Nineteen of the 40 homes would be affordable, 48% of the scheme. That is the figure Wycombe District Local Plan policy DM24 requires, and the applicant has confirmed it. The tenure split would be secured by legal agreement: at least 80% affordable or social rent, up to 20% intermediate.
The same agreement would carry financial contributions towards primary school places, health care, and improving local bus services, plus a travel plan monitoring fee and the long-term upkeep of the open space and drainage.
The bus contribution is aimed at extending the hours of the shuttle bus service for five years. Officers say the current provision “would not” be sufficient without it.
The education contribution is contested. The council’s own Planning Obligations guidance says school contributions are normally sought from sites of 100 homes or more, and the applicant has questioned whether one can be required here. Officers give seven reasons why it can. Among them: the guidance predates the unitary council, lower thresholds apply elsewhere in Buckinghamshire, and CIL money has not been spent on primary education in the west of the county.
Why officers say yes
Longwick already has its number. Local Plan policy RUR5 set 300 new homes for the parish over the plan period, and the Neighbourhood Plan, adopted in March 2018, was left to distribute them. Most of its six allocated sites have been built.
This site sits outside the settlement boundary, in open countryside, separated from the village to the south by an open field.
What changes the answer is the 2026 National Planning Policy Framework and the council’s housing supply. Policy S5 lists categories of development that should be approved outside settlement boundaries, including housing that addresses an evidenced unmet need where the authority cannot show a five-year supply of deliverable sites. Buckinghamshire cannot show one. That triggers the policy and, in the officers’ words, makes the development acceptable in principle.
Officers also give the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan reduced weight, on the grounds that its policies rest on outdated evidence and housing requirements. Their conclusion is that the conflict with the spatial strategy of both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan is “significantly and demonstrably outweighed” by the housing and the affordable homes.
Who objects, and what they say
Longwick cum Ilmer Parish Council objects, and its first point is the count: the parish was set at 300 homes to 2033 and “we are already at that number, with 7 more years to run”. It says the imposition “has doubled the settlement size in a very short time”.
Its other points:
- Bus and travel improvements promised with earlier developments “have been none provided”, and new residents struggle to reach medical facilities outside the parish.
- The sewage system “is unable to cope for significant periods of time”, causing sewage egress and flooding in the north west of the village, with Thames Water tankering the excess away and no plan to fix it.
- Traffic on the A4129 has risen in volume and speed since the village expanded, speed controls requested by the council have not been installed, and the scheme would add about 200 vehicle movements a day.
Greg Smith MP objects too. He calls the application speculative and says it would set “a dangerous precedent for speculative applications elsewhere in Buckinghamshire”. Housing growth in Longwick has already exceeded its planned numbers without the infrastructure to match, he argues. He also notes the nearest station is over two kilometres away, with no designated parking.
Cllr Matthew Walsh registered a “strong objection”. He cites:
- the scale of the scheme, “entirely outside the agreed growth strategy for the village”
- the strain on roads and healthcare provision
- the access road running directly alongside existing homes
- egress onto a road “acknowledged locally as being congested at peak times, with ongoing issues of speeding”
Cllr Gary Hall objected on the grounds that the village “has already taken more than its fair share of new development”. Both asked for it to come to committee if officers were minded to approve. That is why it is on Wednesday’s agenda.
Residents’ objections, summarised in the report, run to the same themes. They add:
- harm to the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings
- the loss of historic orchard land
- the width of the access and its single-lane pinch point
- the capacity of GP surgeries and school places
What the technical consultees said
None of them object. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the capacity of the local road network, and withdrew an initial objection to the access road design after further information. The Lead Local Flood Authority withdrew its objection on receipt of further technical information. Thames Water raises no objection and says the development will not materially affect water supply infrastructure, which sits awkwardly beside the parish council’s account of the sewage system. The Ecology Officer raises no objection subject to conditions.
What it means for you
- To speak at the meeting, contact the planning team at SSC.registration@buckinghamshire.gov.uk. Registration closes before the meeting.
- To watch, the meeting is webcast from the council’s website and the public gallery is open. This is item 5 of nine, after the Kingshill Road Traveller site.
- Approval on Wednesday would not be the end. It is outline permission, so layout, scale, appearance and landscaping all come back as reserved matters, and the permission only issues once the legal agreement is signed.
- If you want the affordable homes, the 19 would come through the council’s housing register and an intermediate route; the split is fixed by the agreement, not by the developer later.
Also before the committee on Wednesday are two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Green Belt, at Kingshill Road in High Wycombe and at Walters Ash, both recommended for approval. We track decisions on this committee in High Wycombe planning news.
Sources
- West Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee agenda, Wednesday 23 September 2026, Buckinghamshire Council, for the agenda, the venue, the running order and the public speaking contact.
- Officer report on 25/06402/OUT, OS Parcel 3623, Thame Road, Longwick, agenda item 5, for the proposal, the applicant, the recommendation and its conditions, the 48% affordable housing requirement and tenure split, the section 106 heads of terms, the education contribution argument, the bus contribution, the five-year housing supply position, the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan, and the consultation responses from the Highway Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority, Thames Water and the Ecology Officer.
- The same report’s Appendix A for the objections from Longwick cum Ilmer Parish Council, Greg Smith MP, Cllr Matthew Walsh and Cllr Gary Hall, quoted from their submissions, and for the summary of residents’ representations.
Have your say