Application to build housing at former industrial site in Bucks is rejected

Arthur Andrews, who has owned Old Rifle Range Farm in Great Kimble for over 50 years, sought “permission in principle” to demolish two industrial buildings on his land and replace them with between four and eight homes.

The latest proposal follows a rejected bid in 2018 to build 15 homes — 10 market homes and five affordable — on the site, which sits within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In 2019, council officers told Mr Andrews the site “may be acceptable in principle” for residential use, provided detailed input was sought from landscape and urban design specialists.

In the latest submission, Mr Andrews’ planning agent Louise Gregory, of Acorus Rural Property Services, argued that the development would improve the site’s impact on the countryside.

“The site is well screened by mature hedgerows and trees,” the planning document said, “and with the removal of buildings, the openness of the Green Belt will be protected and improved.”

The 0.4-hectare site is currently occupied by two industrial sheds — one vacant and one used by two small businesses, which the applicant says can be relocated elsewhere on the farm.

According to planning documents, the current buildings have a footprint of 589 square metres and a volume of around 3,500 cubic metres.

The proposed new homes would reduce this by around 30 per cent, with buildings capped at 1,000 square metres in total, spread across two storeys.

The proposals also pointed to the council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply, which they claim strengthens their case for allowing new homes on previously developed Green Belt land.

They argue that, with reduced building volume and less hardstanding, the scheme would offer “biodiversity enhancements” and fewer large vehicle movements.

In the council’s reasons for refusal, concerns were raised that the proposed development would lead to the loss of a scattered business site.

It highlighted a lack of sufficient evidence to show that the site is no longer viable for employment, community, or town centre uses, saying that the change to residential use would be considered unacceptable.

The council also said there was insufficient information about the ecological impact of the proposal.

They added that the proposed development would intensify the use of an access point on a high-speed road, which could interfere with the flow of traffic and raise highway safety concerns due to increased slowing and turning movements.

Furthermore, the development would result in more vehicles using a narrow public right of way, potentially causing obstruction or damage and increasing the risk of conflict between vehicles and other users such as pedestrians and horse riders.