# Former Revolution Bar, Maxwell Road, Beaconsfield

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R J Redford
- **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007582
- **Application reference:** PL/25/1579/FA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of former bar and erection of part 3 / part 5 storey building of 28 flats with flexible Class E ground floor, parking, cycle parking and landscaping
- **Homes:** 28
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** F7, DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** South Bucks District Local Plan TC1, S1, EP3, EP5, H9, South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 CP3, CP6, CP9, CP11, CP13, emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan Reg 19 SMA001
- **Main issues:** surface water flooding, neighbour living conditions, obligations
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, flood-risk, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, habitats-mitigation, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip

## Summary
Twenty-eight flats (40% affordable) over flexible commercial space on a former bar site in Beaconsfield New Town. Dismissed because surface-water exceedance flows would be sent into a neighbour's private drainage without evidence of capacity, and because of daylight loss to Elmers Court and privacy loss to The Hollies. The inspector treated F7 and DP3(3) as two "should be refused" policies engaging S4(2)(c), outweighing substantial housing, town-centre and brownfield benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition and emerging plan.** Parties given the opportunity to comment; the Reg 19 plan gets limited weight under DM4 (DL ¶4).
- **Flooding: FAIL.** "it has not been shown that the proposal would not increase the risk of surface water flooding with particular regard to adjacent residential properties" (DL ¶17). The council's condition was not reasonable because flows "would require potential third-party input and agreement" (DL ¶15).
- **Daylight (Elmers Court): HARM.** Mirror-image analysis rejected: "it is not what is existing on site" (DL ¶22).
- **Privacy (The Hollies): HARM** on a precautionary basis (DL ¶28).
- **Benefits.** HO7, TC2 and L2(1)(b) each substantial (DL ¶42); sustainability and ecology moderate (DL ¶43).
- **Triggers.** "Framework Policy F7 requires amongst other things for development proposals to not present a risk from flooding to potential occupiers and should not increase flood risk elsewhere, otherwise they should be refused" (DL ¶46). "With Policy DP3.3 going as far as to state that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with Policy DP3.1" (DL ¶47).

## Planning balance
S4 with S4(2)(c). "although it is found the benefits of the proposal which are substantial, they would not in this instance substantially outweigh the adverse effects of the proposal which would fail to comply with 2 Framework policies that set out specific circumstances for refusal" (DL ¶48). This inverts the S4(1) formula (the test is whether benefits are *substantially outweighed by* adverse effects); the outcome follows anyway from S4(2)(c), so the slip is not decisive. Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶49).

## What made the difference
The unevidenced exceedance route. An on-site exceedance solution, or evidence of capacity and agreement for The Hollies' system, would have removed the F7 trigger; the daylight and privacy harm would then have been weighed against substantial benefits.

## Transferable points
- A drainage condition is unreasonable where the scheme relies on a third party's private system with no evidence of capacity or agreement (DL ¶14–16).
- F7 read as a "should be refused" policy for S4(2)(c) (DL ¶46, ¶48).
- A "mirror image" daylight baseline does not reflect what is on site (DL ¶22).
- Substantial weight under HO7, TC2 and L2(1)(b) together did not overcome two failed refusal policies (DL ¶42, ¶48).

## Policy findings
- **F7: fail.** exceedance flows routed to The Hollies' private drainage with no evidence of capacity or third-party agreement; condition not reasonable; F7 treated as a should-be-refused policy (DL 14-17, 46)
- **DM7: neutral.** foundation encroachment into 10 m borehole buffer (chalk dissolution) left to other regimes (DL 11-13)
- **P3: harm.** 2 rooms substantial and 5 moderate daylight loss at Elmers Court; mirror-image baseline rejected; privacy harm to The Hollies from balconies under 21 m (DL 19-30, 47)
- **DP3(3): fail.** DP3.1 living-conditions conflict; "should be refused if, without clear justification" cited; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 47-48)
- **S4(2)(c): fail.** fails 2 Framework should-be-refused policies (F7, DP3(3)); letter inverts the S4 formula ("would not ... substantially outweigh the adverse effects") (DL 48)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no 5YHLS (figure not stated); includes 11.2 affordable dwellings secured by s106 (DL 34, 42)
- **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** town centre vitality incl. residential diversification (DL 42)
- **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of vacant/underutilised land (DL 42)
- **L3: benefit (limited weight).** emerging allocation proposes more dwellings (DL 44)
- **HC6: benefit (limited weight).** pub not commercially viable (DL 44)
- **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** Reg 19 emerging plan limited weight (DL 4)
- **N6: pass.** Burnham Beeches SAC SAMM contribution secured by s106 (DL 31-33)

## Key facts
- Chalk dissolution "high risk"; 10 m CIRIA C574 buffer, one building corner about 8.5 m from borehole (DL 9-11)
- Exceedance flows to rely on The Hollies' private drainage system; third-party input needed (DL 14-15)
- 40% affordable (8 social rent, 3 shared ownership, commuted sum) secured by s106 (DL 34)
- BNG de minimis exemption (DL 37)
- Costs applications against the council as LPA and as LLFA decided separately (DL 2)
- Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007582
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6862bd7d-8beb-4968-ab47-3abeebfd4b70

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007582.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.