Strategic Sites Committee - Thursday 19 March 2026, 10:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Strategic Sites Committee
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 10:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Cllr Jackson Ng
  4. Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
  5. Cllr John Chilver
  6. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  7. Cllr Llew Monger
  8. Cllr Phil Gomm
  9. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  10. Cllr Andy Huxley
  11. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  12. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  13. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  14. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Phil Gomm
  2. Cllr Mark Turner
  3. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  4. Cllr Mark Turner
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Mark Turner
  7. Public Speakers
  8. Cllr Mark Turner
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Mark Turner
  11. Cllr Phil Gomm
  12. Public Speakers
  13. Cllr Mark Turner
  14. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Mark Turner
  17. Cllr Phil Gomm
  18. Cllr Mark Turner
  19. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  20. Cllr Phil Gomm
  21. Cllr Mark Turner
  22. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  23. Cllr Mark Turner
  24. Public Speakers
  25. Cllr Mark Turner
  26. Public Speakers
  27. Cllr Mark Turner
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Mark Turner
  30. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  31. Cllr Mark Turner
  32. Public Speakers
  33. Cllr Mark Turner
  34. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  35. Public Speakers
  36. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  37. Public Speakers
  38. Cllr Mark Turner
  39. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  40. Public Speakers
  41. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  42. Public Speakers
  43. Cllr Mark Turner
  44. Cllr John Chilver
  45. Public Speakers
  46. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  47. Public Speakers
  48. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  49. Public Speakers
  50. Cllr Mark Turner
  51. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  52. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  53. Cllr Mark Turner
  54. Cllr Llew Monger
  55. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  56. Cllr Llew Monger
  57. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  58. Cllr Llew Monger
  59. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  60. Cllr Llew Monger
  61. Cllr Mark Turner
  62. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  63. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  64. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  65. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  66. Cllr Mark Turner
  67. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  68. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  69. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  70. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  71. Cllr Mark Turner
  72. Cllr Llew Monger
  73. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  74. Cllr Llew Monger
  75. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  76. Cllr Llew Monger
  77. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  78. Cllr Llew Monger
  79. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  80. Cllr Llew Monger
  81. Cllr Mark Turner
  82. Cllr David Moore
  83. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  84. Cllr Mark Turner
  85. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  86. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  87. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  88. Cllr Mark Turner
  89. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  90. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  91. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  92. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  93. Cllr Mark Turner
  94. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  95. Cllr Mark Turner
  96. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  97. Cllr Mark Turner
  98. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  99. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  100. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  101. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  102. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  103. Cllr Mark Turner
  104. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  105. Cllr Mark Turner
  106. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  107. Cllr Mark Turner
  108. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  109. Cllr Mark Turner
  110. Cllr David Moore
  111. Cllr Mark Turner
  112. Cllr Llew Monger
  113. Cllr Mark Turner
  114. Cllr John Chilver
  115. Cllr Mark Turner
  116. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  117. Cllr Mark Turner
  118. Cllr Phil Gomm
  119. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  120. Cllr Mark Turner
  121. Cllr Phil Gomm
  122. Cllr Mark Turner
  123. Cllr Andy Huxley
  124. Cllr Mark Turner
  125. Cllr Jackson Ng
  126. Cllr Mark Turner
  127. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  128. Cllr Llew Monger
  129. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. Public Speakers
  3. Cllr Mark Turner
  4. Public Speakers
  5. Cllr Mark Turner
  6. Public Speakers
  7. Cllr Mark Turner
  8. Cllr Jackson Ng
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Jackson Ng
  11. Cllr Mark Turner
  12. Cllr Jackson Ng
  13. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  14. Public Speakers
  15. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  18. Public Speakers
  19. Cllr Mark Turner
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Mark Turner
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Mark Turner
  24. Cllr Phil Gomm
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Phil Gomm
  27. Public Speakers
  28. Cllr Phil Gomm
  29. Cllr Mark Turner
  30. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  31. Public Speakers
  32. Cllr Mark Turner
  33. Public Speakers
  34. Cllr Mark Turner
  35. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  36. Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer
  37. Cllr Mark Turner
  38. Public Speakers
  39. Cllr Mark Turner
  40. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  43. Public Speakers
  44. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  45. Public Speakers
  46. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  47. Public Speakers
  48. Cllr Mark Turner
  49. Cllr Phil Gomm
  50. Cllr Mark Turner
  51. Cllr Phil Gomm
  52. Cllr Mark Turner
  53. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  54. Cllr Mark Turner
  55. Cllr David Moore
  56. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  57. Cllr David Moore
  58. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  59. Cllr David Moore
  60. Cllr Mark Turner
  61. Cllr Jackson Ng
  62. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  63. Cllr Jackson Ng
  64. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  65. Cllr Jackson Ng
  66. Cllr Mark Turner
  67. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  68. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  69. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  70. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  71. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  72. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  73. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  74. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  75. Cllr Mark Turner
  76. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  77. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  78. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  79. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  80. Cllr Mark Turner
  81. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  82. Cllr Mark Turner
  83. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  84. Cllr Mark Turner
  85. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  86. Cllr Mark Turner
  87. Cllr Andy Huxley
  88. Cllr Mark Turner
  89. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  90. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  91. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  92. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  93. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  94. Cllr Mark Turner
  95. Cllr John Chilver
  96. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  97. Cllr John Chilver
  98. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  99. Cllr Mark Turner
  100. Cllr Llew Monger
  101. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  102. Cllr Llew Monger
  103. Cllr Mark Turner
  104. Cllr Phil Gomm
  105. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  106. Cllr Phil Gomm
  107. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  108. Cllr Phil Gomm
  109. Cllr Mark Turner
  110. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  111. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  112. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  113. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  114. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  115. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  116. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  117. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  118. Cllr Mark Turner
  119. Cllr Llew Monger
  120. Cllr Mark Turner
  121. Cllr Jackson Ng
  122. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  123. Cllr Jackson Ng
  124. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  125. Cllr Jackson Ng
  126. Cllr Mark Turner
  127. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  128. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  129. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  130. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  131. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  132. Cllr Mark Turner
  133. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  134. Cllr Mark Turner
  135. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  136. Cllr Mark Turner
  137. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  138. Cllr Mark Turner
  139. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  140. Cllr Mark Turner
  141. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  142. Cllr Mark Turner
  143. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  144. Cllr Mark Turner
  145. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  146. Cllr Mark Turner
  147. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  148. Cllr Mark Turner
  149. Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer
  150. Cllr Mark Turner
  151. Cllr Llew Monger
  152. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  153. Cllr Mark Turner
  154. Cllr Jackson Ng
  155. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  156. Cllr Jackson Ng
  157. Cllr Mark Turner
  158. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  159. Cllr Mark Turner
  160. Cllr David Moore
  161. Cllr Mark Turner
  162. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  163. Cllr Mark Turner
  164. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  165. Cllr Mark Turner
  166. Cllr John Chilver
  167. Cllr Mark Turner
  168. Cllr Jackson Ng
  169. Cllr Mark Turner
  170. Cllr Llew Monger
  171. Cllr Mark Turner
  172. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  173. Cllr Mark Turner
  174. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  175. Cllr Mark Turner
  176. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  177. Ms. Katherine Stubbs
  178. Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer
  179. Cllr Mark Turner
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:00:00
Good morning councillors, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the strategic sites.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:00:15
My name is Mark Turner, I'm substituting for Councillor Alex Collinwood, who is otherwise
indisposed.
Please note that the meeting will be webcast and the public and the press can see and hear
the meeting through the webcast.
In the unlikely event that there is a technical error with webcast, the meeting will be paused
until the issue has been resolved.
Couple of housekeeping items to cover.
Members, please note the use of mobile phones
is not permitted during the meeting.
So please either turn them off or put them on silent.
iPads can be used to access MODgov app.
Members, if you wish to speak,
please raise your hand at the appropriate time.
Please remember to turn on your microphone before speaking
and switch it off when you're finished.
In the event of a firearm,
please use the nearest fire exit
and assemble in the overflow car park
which is situated to the right of the main entrance when you exit the building.
If there are any members of the press present, please can you make yourselves known?
Before we move to the first agenda item, I will ask each of the members and officers to introduce themselves, starting with Stuart.
Good morning, I'm Chris Stewart. I'm the team leader for the West area and for minerals and waste in Buckinghamshire.
Hello, I'm Faye Meshian, case officer, principal planner in the majors team West.
Hello, I'm Annie Otterway, I'm a biodiversity net gain officer. I'm here providing ecological advice.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:01:47
Good morning everyone. My name is Councillor David Moore. I'm chairman of the East and South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee and represent the Farnes and Stoke Poges.
Good morning everyone. Jackson Unn, Councillor for Beckonsville, subbing for Alex Collingwood.
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:01
Cllr John Chilver - 0:02:03
Good morning. Councillor John Chilva, Member for the Hallward Ward.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:02:07
Good morning, Councillor Larissa Townsend for Flacwell Heath and the Woburns, substituting for Councillor Penny Drayton.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:15
Councillor Lou Monger representing Winslow Ward.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:20
Councillor Philip Gaunt representing Quainta Ward.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:26
Councillor Jonathan Waters representing Penn, Tylers Green and Loudwater.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:29
Andy Huxley representing Aylesbury East.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:35
Good morning everyone, I'm Patrick Feeley. I'm representing Gwyneth Underwood and the Claydens. I'm also chairman of the Central and North Planning Committee.
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:02:46
I'm Harry Thomas, I'm here with Democratic Services.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 0:02:49
I'm Catherine Stubbs, I'm a planning solicitor for the Council.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:53
Thank you, and just for clarity, I'm Mark Turner, Councillor for the Chiltern Villages Ward.
Do we have any apologies for absence?

1 Apologies for absence

Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:03:03
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Collingwood as we've heard and Councillor Unge is substituting
for him and Councillor Drayton and Councillor Tandon is substituting for her.

2 Minutes

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:03:14
Thank you. Turning now to agenda item two, do we agree the minutes of the committee meeting
held on the 19th of February 2026? These can be found at page three of your agenda pack.
Thank you.

3 Declarations of interest

Item 3. Do any members have any interests to declare?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:03:54
Councillor Townsend. Thank you. These applications relate to an allocated
development site within my ward, sorry they're linked to the developments like
within my ward but I sit on this committee with an open mind and have not
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:04:07
predetermined my position. Thank you. Any others? I declare an interest being the
Children's Villagers Ward which includes Little Marlowe where this application is

4 CM/0010/25 - Spade Oak Quarry, Marlow Road, Little Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3SB

involved. Thank you. So we will now consider the officer report. I'll
clarify the order in which the application will be considered. The
Planning Officer will introduce the application with any relevant updates.
Local members, parish or town council representatives, members of the public
and the agent applicant will be invited to read out their statements in the
following order. First, local members. Second, parish or town council
representatives, three objectors, four supporters, five agents or applicants. It
should be noted that pursuant to the provision in the Constitution related to
public speaking of planning committees, I have exercised my discretion to permit
the two parish councillors three minutes speaking time each as opposed to three
minutes shared. I've also permitted the committee clerk to read out a written
statement on each application from Little Marlow Lakes Community
partnership who unfortunately couldn't attend as expected. Members of the
committee will therefore not be able to ask points of clarification following
that particular statement. After each public speaking statement members are
able to ask the speakers for clarification on matters raised in their
statement and these must be addressed through me as the chairman. I will then
ask members if they have any technical questions of officers. Following this the
entire committee will then discuss the application. Members may seek further
clarification from officers on points regarding the application or on points
raised by speakers in the main debate. Yes, Councillor. Sorry, Chairman, can I just bring
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:05:49
a point of order? Can I kindly ask for a show of hands of those that visited the site
so the public domain are aware that some of us did visit to look at that? Could I
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:05:59
ask for that? Certainly can. And raise hands those who visited the site.
Can we call this?
Thank you very much, Chair.
How's it?
Office will respond to issues and questions
raised by members.
The committee will then make a decision by vote.
Members will need to propose and second the recommendations.
We now move to item four, application number CM -001025
at page five of the agenda pack.
Could our public speakers please respond
after I call your name to indicate your attendance.
Please ensure that your verbal representations committee
relates to the relevant planning considerations
regarding the planning application being considered
and do not include any personal comments.
Public speakers will be called in turn to speak
and will come to sit at the public speaking table.
After members have asked any points of clarification,
please return to your seat.
The order is Councillor Anna Crabtree,
Buckinghamshire Councillor, Councillor Stuart Wilson,
Councillor Kath Akers of the Parish Council,
Charles Brocklehurst, and can I confirm Penny Drayton is outside?
So I'll now call on the case officer, Faye Mejian,
to introduce the report on the application.
Thank you.
So the development description is variation of conditions one,
which relates to time limit,
2 which relates to plans and 19 which relates to operations of planning
permission w 97 707 9 determination of updated planning conditions to be
attached to wr 2 4 8 1 6 1 for the extraction of sand and gravel to allow
for an amended completion of time so just to summarise the amendments or are
to condition 1 which relates to the date of completion for the restoration
works. The original condition required the works to be completed by the end of 2012.
That did not happen, so the applicant is seeking to vary that condition to the 31st of July
27. Condition 2 relates to restoration plans and a replacement of those plans and I've got those
detailed further in the presentation. And condition 19c relates to operational requirements
which required the first or the upper metre of soil to be free of solid objects.
These amendments are considered minor which is why section 73 is considered
appropriate. So just to go through the aerial photo you can see Spadote Lake in
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:08:58
the middle with the spit which is an island, well it's connected but it looks
bit like an island. To the north of that is an area known as the gravel yard. To the northwest
is Little Marlowe Village and Little Marlowe Conservation Area. South of that is Thames Water
Sewage Treatment Works and to the west of that is West Thorpe Lake, also a historic gravel pit
that's been restored as a lake as many of the gravel pits around Little Marlowe have. To the
Home Lane which connects Marlow Road with the Thames Path to the south. So this is the
site plan for the application. The red line plan for this application needs to match the
red line plan for the original application which is the gravel and mineral extraction
plan. So that's why it's a bit of an odd shape. And highlighted in green is the area of the
gravel yard which highlights the area where the amendments are actually sought.
So the historic restoration plan you've got a printed version I hope because
this is obviously quite small. Just to run through the annotations relating to
the gravel yard. The areas of hard standing are to be retained as per the
2014 permission. There are seasonal wet ponds which are also to be retained as per the 2014 permission, but
these are in slightly different locations on the proposed amended plans.
There's still wildflower planting and
the gate is
in the as proposed on the original plan.
Many of the restoration works have already taken place for example on the spit and
and although there's ongoing enhancements taking place there by interested groups such as Chilton Ranges,
there's no proposed changes to these restoration works.
So this is more detail of the updated restoration plan,
and included on here is an area of a car park on the existing hard standing,
a dog -proof fence which will run along the south of that car park towards the
easternmost fund and the seasonal wet ponds in the locations that they
currently exist. The applicant have stated that there's no point in moving
the seasonal wet ponds because they've established naturally. So this is just a
photos of the existing hard standing at the gravel yard looking south towards the spit.
So just to clarify the amendments sought as part of this section 73. It's an amendment to condition
one to change the date, an amendment to the restoration plans as I've highlighted and as
you've got printed, and a removal of the requirement for the upper metre of soil to be free of all solid
objects. One of the reasons for that is there's a sewage pipe running through
that metre that runs from Thames water. So as stated previously the amendments
are considered minor.
Thank you Faye. We will now begin the public speaking for this item and first
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:12:41
here from Councillor Anna Crabtree.
Please come to the table.
Once the time starts, please begin
and you will have three minutes speaking time.
Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak on this matter,
Public Speakers - 0:12:59
which is outside of my ward of Marlowe.
It's been clear to me for some time,
not least through the considerable interest
generated in the town by the Marlowe Film Studio application
in recent years, that Marloweians have a strong attachment
to the land at Little Marlowe Lakes.
Spadoke Lake is only about one mile
from the eastern most houses in Marlowe,
and many Marlowe residents enjoy the Little Marlowe Lakes
on a regular basis as their nearest
and most accessible part of the countryside.
They welcome the proximity of the recreational opportunities
that the lakes and the river offer
and the wildlife that can be seen here.
There is therefore much concern
about Buckinghamshire Council's failure
to restore the former gravel pit land at Spadoke
in accordance with the existing planning conditions.
The fact that the Council was forced to serve itself as both planning authority
and landowner with an enforcement notice in 2022, which has still not been
complied with several years later, has a significantly eroded local trust in the
Council generally and to the objectives of this project. That said, there is a
desire to make the Little Marlowe Lakes into a proper country park and that is
acknowledged to require additional facilities such as a car park and proper
signage. Back in 2012 a planning application was refused by Buckinghamshire
County Council to allow continued mineral processing on this site until
2015. The council concluded that the extension of industrial works of 2015
would be inconsistent with the ambition to create the Little Marlow Lakes Country
Park, the site's greenbelt status and the condition that the land be restored to
agriculture as many other local sites successfully were. It seems incredible
that over 13 years later we are still debating the same topic. The conditions
have still not been complied with and all of this has been in the council's
control for many years. I would like to ask the committee to consider fully why
the conditions are being proposed to be delayed yet again and whether any
aspects of this are being suggested purely as a cost -saving measure. If the
council purchased this land knowing that the concrete had to be removed from the
site for example, what genuine reasons in the best interests of our residents
exist for not fully complying with this existing condition when in 2012 the
The Council was prepared to issue an enforcement notice against a third party who failed to
comply with the exact same restrictions.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:15:08
Thank you, Councillor.
If you will return to your seat.
Oh, sorry, no, actually, we have questions of clarification.
Does anybody have any questions of clarification?
Yeah, we will now hear from Councillor Penny Drayton who's just been summed.
Thank you Councillor Drayton. Once the timer starts you have three minutes. Thank you.
Thank you. Good morning everyone. As you're all aware I'd normally be sitting here with
you in capacity as a committee member for strategic sites. However I was asked to step
back today as it was feared I may be perceived to be predetermined on this
Public Speakers - 0:16:32
application as I have a history with connexion not to here but to an
alternative plan application which is reliant on today's applications being
approved. In fact I've been told the Hollands farm needs this sang for its
planning approval to progress. The first application this morning though is not
for sang, it's for a variation condition at an old quarry site. In order to alter
conditions on outstanding restoration works. Well this
application, the one in front of you, needs to be approved in order for the
next application which is coming up this morning to be approved. The next
application, the SANG, needs to be approved for the future, coming to a
committee soon, application of Holland's Farm to be approved. These are all
reliant on each other. It's very apparent there's pressure to get the Domino's
As I was a founding member of the group Keep Born End Green which fought
hard to protect Hollands Farm from release from Greenbelt, I have this on my
register and interest and I'm therefore perceived to be biassed towards these
applications. Whilst I maintain I would have been able to sit on this committee
with an open mind to avoid doubts or accusation if I chose in the end to not
support the approval of this, I've chosen to not sit here today. But the big
question is who really has the conflict of interest here. The application is for
Bucks, from Bucks. They need it and they want it and they've recommended it for
approval. They want the variation of condition for their benefit, no one else
is. I ask you to keep this in mind as you discuss the application this morning and
the next one. Consider everything that the app with the applicant in mind and
everything that you are told is from their perspective whilst needing this to
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:18:22
be approved and draw your own conclusions. Thank you. Thank you Councillor
Drayton. You've heard the planning statement. Does anybody have any
questions of clarification? No, thank you very much.
For the record, Councillor Drayton has now left the Chamber.
We'll now hear from Councillor Stuart Wilson. Please come to the table. Once the time starts,
Public Speakers - 0:19:01
you'll have three minutes. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning to members. There is much that stinks about the two Buckinghamshire
Council planning applications before you today, and I'm not referring to the little Marlowe
sewage treatment works right next door, although more of that particular stench in the second
application later.
Wycombe District Council acquired the site for just under £1 million in 2019, shortly
after the adoption of the Wickham Local Plan.
It came with the substantial restoration conditions
imposed in 2012 and no funding to pay for it,
particularly Planning Condition 19C
to remove the hard standing in full.
Please do ask officers what the cost of restoration will be
if you do not approve this application today.
I've heard 500 ,000 pounds
from the mineral and waste team previously.
None of the Star Wars income from filming
was set aside towards the restoration work.
Buckinghamshire Council of the applicant
is asking Buckinghamshire Council, the local planning authority, to approve variation of
conditions to help Buckinghamshire Council, the landowner, to do much less restoration work than
stipulated in the original conditions and restated in the planning enforcement notice
imposed by Buckinghamshire Council on Buckinghamshire Council in 2022. You might start to see why this
application stinks, but that's not all. This is a minerals and waste application. Why is it presented
by the major science officer responsible for the Hollands Farm application.
This application has no reasonable basis to be put forward at all.
The application is built on an assumption that you will approve this and then the subsequent
application for a SANG.
However, the SANG recommendation is for a delegated authority to secure a management
plan and a memorandum of understanding for the management and maintenance of a SANG
for a minimum of 80 years, a substantial undertaking running into millions of pounds at a previous
briefing.
And that memorandum of understanding is based on the approval of three applications for
Holland's Farm, which have yet to be scheduled to come before this committee, but must meet
a hope of policy requirements under Policy B2 of the Wickham Local Plan.
It's all based on a presumption that the Strategic Sites Committee gives its approval and waves
it all through.
Paragraph 3 .3 of the Officer's Report notes that permission of this application stands
separately from the original permission, and that the applicant is under no obligation
to implement the new permission. So you're being asked to give approval to a variation of a
condition that may not be implemented by Buckinghamshire Council to let it off the hook for its
planning enforcement notice on clear planning conditions that the legacy authority knowingly
entered into when purchasing the land and Buckinghamshire Council has failed to implement in the first three
years of its ownership. Three years later that planning enforcement notice remains unanswered
until now. If that applicant was a landowner in your ward, you'd be appalled and would
demand that the landowner fulfils the planning conditions or face legal prosecution. You'd
refuse this permission until the original planning conditions have been satisfied, because
that's the only way you can make sure it happens. It stinks.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:22:09
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. You've heard the planning statements raised. Do you wish
to make a comment or ask any questions of clarification.
Councillor Gough.
Thank you, Chairman, appreciated.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:22:27
I thought you didn't like me then for a second.
I'll allow someone to go first.
Definitely not the case, Councillor.
Thank you for coming back to the table.
I'd just like a clarification.
You mentioned that you had heard from the waste team,
I believe it was, that the restoration would cost 500K.
And then you brought up the Star Wars point as well.
Do you know how much was put by for that, from that fund
at all?
Public Speakers - 0:23:01
As far as I'm aware, I don't think any of that money
was put by.
In fact, I've seen correspondence
between cabinet members to say that that money should all
go to the council centrally rather than be held locally.
What I am aware is that there was a provision in the budget
a couple of years ago for about 250 ,000 pounds
in the capital reserve that was rolled backwards to do that.
So probably half the amount of money that I believe
I've led to be believed by the minerals and waste team,
it would actually cost the council
if this variation of condition was not allowed.
Because I don't necessarily believe it's a minor variation.
when you've got to take a metre depth of concrete out of the site.
That's a fairly significant amount of work.
So, you know, that's what I've been led to believe.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:24:00
Councillor Waters.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:24:03
Can we just stick to questions of clarification, please? I've just been reminded.
Well, hopefully.
Okay, in terms of the statement you've made, obviously, and looking at the conditions here,
obviously the removal of the concrete is a major part of what you've talked about.
Is it that in terms of the amendments here, because when we look at it as a committee,
anything that comes in like this, if it was any applicant as a committee, we don't look
what hasn't been done in the past we look at this particular application so
just for clarification so in looking at this application is it that you are not
happy with the level of extraction of concrete and various other amendments
which would be part of this is that is that the issue that you feel actually
the original requirement needs to be fully fulfilled and that's that's the
key point that you're making.
Absolutely right.
Public Speakers - 0:25:07
I think the materiality, I mean, clearly the first
variation is to move the date back yet again.
And the third variation is to not do the work the council,
as the owner, should have done a long time ago.
And it is a very material amount of work, running into
several hundred thousand pounds.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:25:36
Sorry, I think you were first, Councillor Gough.
I'd just like to come back, Chairman.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:25:45
You just made a comment about keeping our questions
for clarification.
Was you referring to my question or any question?
Because I thought I was asking for clarification.
Yes, sorry.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:25:59
I think the issue is that you were asking a question
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 0:26:03
about the financing of a development,
and that's not a planning issue.
It wasn't that it hadn't been mentioned
by Councillor Wilson.
It was the fact that this is not relevant
to the planning decision.
Who's going to pay for it?
How much is it gonna cost?
Those are not questions we ask on other development proposals.
So that's all it was, Councillor.
I'll go with you, but I beg to differ.
All I was just doing was digging in a little bit deeper to what the member had said.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:26:40
And it does involve planning because that was submitted, but I'll leave it there.
I won't get into a debate over that.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:26:47
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 0:26:50
Well, I think it needs to be clarified that it's not a material planning consideration.
I appreciate that.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:26:54
Any other questions for Councillor Wilson? Thank you, you can sit down. Thank you.
We now hear from Councillor Kath Akers representing Little Marlowe Parish
Council please come to the table.
Unfortunately our legal officer is saying no. He's registered to speak.
Okay, in that case then yes.
Thank you, Councillor Emmett. You have three minutes when the time starts. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:27:53
It's our view that this application effectively seeks to remove most of the
conditions that were set out in the 2014 restoration plan that
was talked about earlier.
I'm sorry, but some of my points will
cover what have also been covered by other councillors.
The revised plan put in by Lafarge
had detailed conditions regarding the breaking up
of the hard standing to a depth of one metre,
importing soils to maintain and revise site levels,
and replanting with very specific types of plants and species.
It included things like the common bench, sheep's vesce, white clover, and bird's foot trefoil.
Very, very specific.
Also, there was due to be a detailed planting scheme to replace the black poplars.
They have been felled for a safety reason, thankfully.
But that detailed plan included exact namings of the plants that should go in, including
oak, hazel, wild cherry, gala rose, black thorn.
All of this is just being brushed aside.
And as has previously been mentioned, the Bucks County Council has then issued enforcement
notices on Lafarge in July 18 and September 18.
It was then followed by an inspection
by enforcement officers Mitchell Pugh and Oliver Olivia
Stapleford on the 3rd of December 18.
And they noted after this visit, which was unannounced,
that there was a complete lack of the four metre
ride to the bird's hides.
There also were no bird hides installed.
There weren't any seasonally wet ponds.
There was no permissive path created on the northwest side of the lake.
Certainly no management plan for the plantings because there had been no plantings.
And the level boards that were detailed to be put in to ensure the right levels were put in weren't put in.
And the soil was never put there in the first place.
I'm afraid that it brings it to that our view is actually a clandestine way of
removing the conditions and it certainly wasn't offered to any of the previous
owners both the Farge and Mr. Hussein Hussein they were just threatened with
legal action enforcement. Thank you sir.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:30:41
Thank you Councillor Emmett. Does anybody have any questions of
clarification for that statement.
Public Speakers - 0:30:50
Thank you, Councillor.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:30:52
We'll now hear from Councillor Wilson,
again, representing Woburn and Bourne NPC.
Again, three minutes, thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:31:13
Thank you. You may get a little tired of seeing me. I am the Deputy Chair of the Woburn and
Bournham Parish Council Planning Highways and Lighting Committee and I've been asked
to speak on their behalf. I'm going to pick up some comments that Councillor Wilson, the
ward councillor made and just conclude those really if that's okay with you, Chair. If
If this applicant was a landowner in your ward, you would be appalled and would demand
that the landowner fulfils the planning conditions or face legal prosecution.
You would refuse this permission until the original planning conditions have been satisfied,
because that is the only way you can ensure that the planning conditions can be met and
the landowner is not let off the hook for this flagrant breach of planning conditions,
resulting in a planning enforcement notice over three years ago.
It is not acceptable from Buckinghamshire Council and I urge you to refuse permission
on this application. Make an appeal of the decision of the local planning authority.
It is unlikely that Buckinghamshire Council will seek costs against Buckinghamshire Council.
For once, you have a free hit.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:32:22
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Does anybody have any questions? No? Thank you. If you
take a seat. Thank you.
We'll now hear a written statement from Little Marlow Lakes Community
Partnership in support of the application. A reminder that committee
members will not be able to ask points of clarification on this following the
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:33:03
statement. We support the principle of developing a sang at Spade Oak Lake set
out in applications 1025 and 1125. The allocation of sang status is compatible
with the council's policy of designating the site of the country park. Moreover
our view is that a sang would help protect the council Spade Oak lands from
inappropriate development and contribute to funding amenity and environmental
infrastructure needed to achieve that policy. Our representation however also
highlighted reservations on some points of detail.
The following points in particular
have not been explicitly addressed by subsequent amendments
or in the case officer's report.
It has not been made explicit that the buffer zone
between the southern bund and the Spitt Peninsula
is intended to be included in the area
to which public access will be restricted.
Amended plans, gravel yard restoration proposal,
still show that there is no fencing or other barrier
to prevent the public accessing the buffer zone
around the end of the bund adjacent to the lake.
While the short length of fencing required
might be regarded as a later operational detail,
it's important to recognise that this inclusion
of the buffer zone within the restricted area
is essential to protecting the integrity
of the nature -rich area.
The proposed restoration scheme for the bulk of the yard area
south of the fence line has been designed
as a combination of potentially valuable natural habitats.
It logically therefore should be a dog -free area.
The remainder of the yard area to the east of that
shown to be restored and the woodland area
between that and the lake edge is shown
as open to unrestricted access from the east.
This would allow uncontrolled entry to the whole area by dog walkers wandering off from the nominated sang footpath
potentially causing harm to wildlife habitats as the council's commentary on the same criteria states
The character of the whole site is not conducive to free roaming dogs
If the council is minded to approve this application its decision should recognise that these shortcomings will need to be addressed
Possibly by way of condition or at a later stage of the design and consultation process
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:34:48
Thank you.
We'll now hear from Charles Brocklehurst
speaking on behalf of the applicant.
If you'll come to the table, Charles.
Once the timer starts, you have three minutes speaking time.
Public Speakers - 0:35:09
Chairman, I'm Charles Brocklehurst.
I'm in the council's corporate property team
and their representative as landowner for these applications.
I should like to set some context for them, but before I do,
I'd like to respond to the point made about why the Council is seeking to not undertake a deep dig of the site.
This was not undertaken by Tarmac Lefage, the former owners, who instead covered the former gravel yard with soil.
As a result, over the past decade, the site has naturally regenerated,
so much so that ecological advice is to leave the top layer undisturbed and replace the soil stripped off by the film company.
Added to which a deep dig would involve dig and dump, which is environmentally not good practise.
That means taking all the material off site in numerous lorry loads.
Turning to the context for the restoration plan application and the SANG application,
they follow the Council's decision in 2025 to designate Spadoke Lake as a country park
with an ambition to extend this designation to cover a wider area of little Marlowe lakes,
subject to other landowners' agreement in the future.
It means that the lake will, in due course, come under the management of the Council's Country Parks team.
They're already working with the Groundwork Trust on Habitat Improvement on the Spit,
the publicly inaccessible island in the lake that attracts so many waterfowl.
This work is being funded by Thames Water Grant to the Community Partnership.
To improve the visitor experience of the rest of the lake also requires investment.
For much of the year, the lake's perimeter paths and the public footpaths across the former Carrington fields to the north are a muddy mess.
In summertime, the parish council's car park in Coldmore Home Lane often has inadequate capacity.
Obtaining natural England accreditation of the lake, as they sang, creates the potential to attract much needed investment.
In this regard, the Council as landowner is well aware of the balance to be struck between nature and visitors.
The restoration plan includes fencing, extended to full length of the gravel yard to deter people and dogs from the lakeside adjacent to the spit.
The Council is retaining Pearl Frishman, its ecology consultants, to produce both environmental and construction management plans.
They have also produced BNG proposals, which include woodland management that will reduce the impact of buddleier and invasive species.
To create and maintain the lake as a special place, visitors need to feel secure.
The CCTV that was installed, along with an occupier at the bottom end of Mushalik Road, has prevented fly -tipping.
The plan is to close the proposed new car park at night and height -restricted.
Future maintenance will include active waste management.
In conclusion, these applications aim to transform
Ms. Chalick Road as a new entrance into Spadote Lake
and a new gateway to the River Thames
by providing new parking and footpath links,
thereby taking pressure off Coldmore Home Lane
to give an opportunity for more people
to enjoy this special place.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:38:18
Thank you.
Mr. Brocklehurst, does anybody have any points
of clarification of the speaker?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:38:40
I'm going to come back to a question which was raised actually by the parish in terms
of the detail that seems to be in these amendments and the type of planting that was expected
and hasn't happened, different types,
and why this application doesn't include that
or doesn't seem to include that
as far as the parish is concerned,
the changes which are taking place,
or does it include it?
Public Speakers - 0:39:14
Yes, I'm not a biologist, a plant specialist,
but the restoration plan that we submitted
does include landscaping proposals
and planting, whether it matches what was in the original consent, I'm not sure.
But it is intended to create a wildflower meadow over the gravel yard
and undertake planting along the buns when they're reduced in height.
So there will be fresh landscaping introduced into the area.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:39:50
And the question about, which you've talked about fencing that's going to go in to prevent
particularly dogs and those people visiting the area from affecting particularly the spit
and other things. Will that have a create a problem, again you may not be able to answer
this, with other wildlife not being able to actually enter the site? Obviously you're
stopping dogs, but does that then stop badgers and deer
or anything else from actually entering the site,
or foxes, for instance?
Public Speakers - 0:40:25
The spit is kept secure to prevent predators
from accessing it.
That said, there is evidence that deer have managed
to probably get across the water to access it.
But the graveyard area, where as I say,
it's going to be landscaped as Wildflower Meadow.
We had interesting discussions with Natural England
about just how fenced off it should become.
They didn't want it totally enclosed,
but we have proposed to extend the fence from the car park
where people tend to let their dogs out from cars parked
and stop them running across the meadow,
the Wildflower Meadow, towards the lakeside.
And there is a discussion to be had as to how do you reconcile stock -proof fencing with wild animals.
Particularly, we'd look out before we did anything for any established badger runs,
and I think it would be possible to leave openings in the fence that the badgers would be familiar with,
but visiting dogs wouldn't.
So there is a design issue there to be resolved.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:41:44
Any other questions? Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:41:47
Thank you. Sorry, could we just come back to the point you made about,
you've had ecological advice to leave the concrete in the soil where it is. Could you just expand on
Public Speakers - 0:42:03
that a little bit further and just on the reasons why and the evidence to support it?
So the site has had a covering of soil for over a decade now,
apart from an area which we're going to restore that the film company stripped off,
and the ecologists are satisfied that that's developed,
has naturally regenerated with its own habitat,
and to disturb that would be inadvisable.
it would involve considerable excavation and any material removed would have to be taken off site,
which in itself involves considerable truck movements, heavy goods vehicles.
So on balance, it's felt better to leave the site as it is and improve it,
rather than disturb it by undertaking what we call a deep dig.
And incidentally, we had costs about three years ago of that,
and it was a million pounds, so it's a lot more than has been mentioned earlier.
But it's principally to leave the habitat to continue to evolve naturally,
rather than to go and dig it all up and try and replace it.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:43:19
And what proportion of the site does that relate to?
Because you mentioned there is part that you've been advised to extract.
Public Speakers - 0:43:27
No. The case officer showed the gravel yard as the green -edged site.
Half of that was restored after the film company and is naturally regenerated over the last three years.
the other half remains to be resurfaced with soil.
But it isn't the intention to do any removal of concrete.
Also, as the case officer pointed out,
frustrated by, or prevented by the presence
of Thames Water's high -pressure sewers
that run diagonally across the gravel yard
at a minimal depth.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:44:13
Councillor Childers.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:44:16
Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on that last point about the high -pressure sewers.
I can't see the location of them on any of the plans that we've got in front of us, but
if that's the case, why was it ever part of the restoration proposal to clear the top
metre of soil if those sewers were already in place or were they put in afterwards?
Public Speakers - 0:44:42
I would think that the original consent which dates back to,
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:44:53
Faye I don't know what the date of it was. The original consent dates back to the 1960s.
Public Speakers - 0:44:58
Yeah I think it predated the sewers. Okay but when I asked the Waste and
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:45:01
Millenials team for the purpose of that particular element of the condition they
said it was just a standard condition that went on and it's questionable
whether it should have been there.
Public Speakers - 0:45:11
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:45:14
Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you Public Speakers. You're welcome to stay
in the meeting until the decision has been made on the application. So now do
members have any technical questions for the officers?
If so, please raise your hand and I will call on
Councillor Feeley.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:45:42
Thank you chairman.
Just a technical question.
Is there elements of some of these conditions
that can be taken forward?
I know we have to look at the application in front of us,
but there may be elements that we would wish to consider
for any further development.
Sorry, could you repeat that? I'm not sure I understand that question. Could you
repeat that? I'm not sure I understand that question, sorry.
The condition of previous conditions, should they be brought forward to the current application?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:46:18
They are. So many of them are. The applicant have applied to vary three of the
conditions and then in addition to that, as part of this application, conditions
7, 8, 20 and 21 have been deleted because they're no longer relevant and condition
22 is a new condition which requires some aftercare and monitoring for every
year for a period of five years. But all other conditions are just duplicated
onto the section 73 effectively is a fresh permission so most of the
original conditions are just duplicated.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:46:56
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:47:01
Councillor Mungo then Councillor Waters. Thank you chair. Can I take the opposite to paragraph
3 .3 on page 8 of the report please. I come to this application entirely fresh. I think
many of the people in the room have been with it for it seems 14 years or more even. So
forgive me if my question may seem a little obvious,
but in the last sentence of 3 .3 it states,
it would generate a separate standalone permission
that the applicant is entitled to implement or ignore.
So, in what circumstances and under what conditions
can the applicant simply secure a consent
and then ignore it without risk of penalty. What would be, what's the situation surrounding that?
And it also says, above that in 3 .3, the application of this section of the Act actually has no effect on the original permission.
and therefore presumably the original conditions of the original permission
still stand and should be carried out. It seems to be a lot revolving around that
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:48:30
paragraph to my way of thinking. So the effect of a section 73 application is
the result of that would be two separate permissions and the landowner would be
to implement either one of those so effectively they've got two separate
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:48:46
permissions. Well thank you for that but they're entirely different.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:48:49
They are different but we so although it's called a variation of condition you
can't vary the condition of the original permission so you create a duplicate
with the varied conditions. The wording in that paragraph suggests therefore that
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:49:02
either one could be ignored? Yes or implemented. Tell me what would be the penalties and who would
apply them if the consent was ignored under the minerals and waste application?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:49:17
Well an enforcement notice has been issued because the original was not complied with.
That now can't be complied with because it involves a date that has passed.
So in order to comply with the conditions they would need to implement this permission if it is permitted today.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:49:42
Okay I'll serve further questions, further points for later in the meeting.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:49:44
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:49:46
Councillor Waters.
There are two things.
One, you talked about the sewage,
high pressure sewage pipe going through and the condition
that was placed within that area in terms of what could
and couldn't be done and what was required.
And that it didn't seem to carry any weight,
which seemed surprising.
It would be quite good to understand why that's the case.
And the other question is I know
Charles Brockhurst was talking about the removal of
Concrete or other items and the digging a metre deep
By not doing anything
Is there any danger within those areas of anything that is going to be left there that shouldn't be left there?
To the public or to anybody who might be on that site
Because presumably the reason why you would remove these things is to make sure any dangers didn't exist in the future after you've carried out gravel extraction works or any other work on the site.
That's why they're always quite clear that everything has to go unless there's a particular purpose for something to stay for the future which would be beneficial.
And obviously it was not considered to be beneficial to leave anything on the site.
So there are two areas I'm not quite sure where we are on that.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:51:11
Okay so obviously the original permission dates back to the 60s and
things have changed since then so in my assessment I saw no planning reason for
the applicant to remove the top metre of soil on the site as the applicants
explained since then some soil has been replaced on top of everything and that's
established and has actually formed a habitat which is we'll come on to that
in the next application, but there's no planning reason
to now request that the landowner remove the top metre
of soil, of solid objects, coupled with the added
complication that there is a sewage pipe running along
the surface of the site, essentially.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:51:59
Okay, but as far as your judgement is, there is no risk
to the public of leaving things as they are.
Correct.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:52:05
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:52:09
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 0:52:11
So can I, Councillor Walters, can I just add to that answer?
I asked our Minerals and Waste Consultant why that condition normally appears on mineral
sites, why do we ask for the land to be restored within a metre of the surface?
And he said the main reason for that is because a lot of mineral sites are restored to agriculture.
So if you're working a land agriculturally, you wouldn't want to
encounter concrete or whatever else within the top surface of the land.
So that, taking the date back to the 1960s, that might have been in the council's
mind at that time. But as you say, there are other benefits like safety,
but that's not going to be a problem in this case.
Thank you.
Councillor Townsend.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:53:05
It strikes me that if we were sitting here and the applicant was a private third party,
we would be asking the question, why?
Why has nothing been done since the enforcement notice in 2022?
What's the mitigation?
What are the justifications for that failure to act on the enforcement notice?
It sounds to me that it's rather by luck than design that we now have this lovely developed ecology on top of the concrete,
but that's just as a matter of it being left for many, many years.
Why has this happened? That's what I'd like to know. Thank you.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:53:46
Well, it's probably more for the applicant, but I know that it's been in various land ownerships since the 1960s,
but that's probably for the applicant to explain. I don't have a reason for that.
It should be noted the reason that the applications before committee is because
it's a council owned site because normally this would be a delegated decision.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 0:54:19
The question why doesn't really influence the issue,
which is here's a scheme in front of us.
Is it acceptable to get planning approval or not,
are there planning reasons why it shouldn't get approved?
So we often don't know the motives of landowners
or applicants for planning permission,
but we don't have to question those motives.
We need to look at our policies and apply them.
So, you know, we don't necessarily know why,
and we don't want to guess why.
We shouldn't guess why.
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:54:59
Council Member.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:55:01
Thank you, Chair.
I've got three further points to raise.
Perhaps if I give them all together.
Tell me page 15 on time limits in one.
The words in red deleted.
I assume that is telling me that all plant machinery
buildings have already been removed.
You could clarify that.
In two, general, the development hereby permitted
shall not be carried out otherwise than in
substantial
accordance with the details that seems a very loose description
Normally, I can't ever remember seeing that particular wording in a planning application in 15 or 16 years
of being involved with planning applications. The normal wording is other
Otherwise than in accordance with. Why include the word substantial? Does that mean they can do what they like?
Turning to page 16, deletion of 7 and 8, that doesn't seem to relate to the application.
Can you explain what grounds they are deleted?
and similarly on page 18 sections 20 or conditions 20 and 21 deleted. I can see 19 is deleted
but I don't see any reference to 20 and 21 being delivered. So just to recap then the
reasons for the deletions of the items in red on pages 15, 16 and 18 and the use of
the word substantial in terms of the permission, the extent to which the permission is adhered
to.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:57:12
Yeah, so I've left the original text in red and crossed it out just so that everybody
could see exactly what was being amended just for clarification. Otherwise you need the
original permission to see what they're actually seeking. And as part of a section 73 assessment,
I'm required to reassess all the conditions before I reapply them. So for example, we've
County Planning Authority with local planning authority. So with regards to
condition one that text was not considered relevant because there's no
plant and machinery on the site now when the previous permission there was a
quite extensive plant and recycling facility on site and then in terms of
conditions 7, 8, 20 and 21, again, they were not considered relevant to reapply.
So condition 7 relates to internal access roads which shall be free of mud
and potholes and other debris. There's not really, there's not going to be
vehicles driving around the restoration site as there was when there was a
recycling plant so that's not considered relevant.
Assign advising all vehicles to turn left
as they leave the site,
no longer relevant to a more updated scheme.
And condition 20 relates to the final restored levels
and refers to drawing S40R3A,
which is now being amended as per condition two,
so that's not relevant.
and condition 21 again refers to that same drawing
and sets out different percentages
for different planting species in the wildflower meadow.
So although there's still grassland
and wildflower being planted,
those specific percentages, 15, 25, 45, and 15
of those particular species are not,
I didn't feel that there was a requirement
to specify at that level, so that one's been deleted.
and as I said there's an additional condition 22 which requires an annual
five -year programme of maintenance.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:59:36
All right and the use of the word substantial in reference to the
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 0:59:42
development being in accordance with the permission. So the use of the
applicant because on the application form they request that the wording of
conditions 1, 2 and 19 be amended in a certain way. So that is why the word
substantial is in there. I did not see any reason for to be more strict in this
particular sense given that there's a secondary application for a sang which
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:00:20
going to discuss in a moment so. Just for clarity whilst the applicant is the
council and the Planning Authority is the council for clarity precisely which
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:00:39
department is the applicant? I assume it's the property team well I don't know
Can you, I don't know.
Property.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:00:47
I think there is an issue here in terms of responsibility
that members might reasonably expect to understand.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 1:00:57
I think the applicants, I think, is the estates team.
The planning authority is your planning team.
So those are two separate teams within the council.
And they both operate independent from each other.
So this is a planning report brought to you by your planning officers.
Like any application that comes to you, the applicants and the officers are likely
to have had pre -application negotiations
and discussions during the course of an application.
And one of the things we often do is look
at planning conditions before we recommend conditions.
So there is always a dialogue there.
There's nothing different in this case.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:01:51
It's not about the dialogue, I was trying to be precise about it.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:01:54
Councillor Moore and then Councillor Waters.
Thank you, Chairman. I know we've covered a lot about soil already, but I love soil, just received it in my lawn.
I want to ask a question about whether the planting, whether you considered adding a
soil materials management plan.
Cllr David Moore - 1:02:17
Now I understand there's some quite reverse conditions there already, but to really ensure
that we have the right soil and the replanting, was that considered?
Is that considered sufficient?
Grateful for your thoughts.
Thank you.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:02:32
I think there will be minimal addition of soil on most of the grassland meadow because
as we've said that's already established naturally. So again we've got another application to
get through and within that application there's quite a lot of conditions requiring planting
etc and monitoring of that planting but I haven't, I didn't feel the need to add a soil
condition on this particular application.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:03:03
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:03:04
Councillor Waters. I'm going to come back on that the word substantial and
actually I am very uncomfortable that we've just accepted it rather than
particularly because this is an application from Bucks Council and we
are the planning team from Bucks Council basically looking at that actually it
should be something in terms of the wording I would have expected is
normally rather than giving us that sort of level of flexibility is if actually
you were going to change or amend something or not deliver quite what
actually is there you would have to come back to the planning team to confirm at
least to some level that amendment or that change that you were going to take
place. The sort of wording I would have seen in other areas but they would be
much stricter than that and that they put that in without a real why have they particularly
asked for that, what is it that they think they're not going to be able to deliver seeing
as it's taken years to come to this point. Whatever is in here should be exactly what
the estates team have committed to delivering and I think it's an uncomfortable word that
we should be giving a sort of level of too much leeway there without something to say,
well hang on a minute, if you're not going to deliver on this, you need to be coming
back to us on it, because I think it's wishy -washy and not the sort of thing we should accept
from one department to another internally. This committee has to be very clear and why
it's coming to this committee is because it is a buck's piece of land and that actually
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:04:55
is why we have that responsibility. Okay well if everybody's uncomfortable I can
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:05:03
take that out of the condition, the word substantial. I would be happy if you
would if others would accept that as well because I think it just makes it
very very clear to people that we're not making special rules.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:05:16
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:05:20
Councillor Townsend. Thank you. Using those same points that Councillor Waters has raised,
we heard from Mr. Propplehurst that he's had that, or the estates team has had ecological
advice about leaving the soil where it is and not undertaking the concrete extraction.
Has the planning team verified that or had their own independent advice as to, because
I appreciate that's one point of view.
Are there differing, are there contrary points of view
on what is the best course of action
from an ecological standpoint?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:05:56
I might look to Annie actually.
It's a particular habitat, isn't it?
Would you mind?
So the eastern part of the site
that has already been restored
has developed a nice ecological habitat
and ecologically there's no reason you couldn't do the same on top of the
concrete and get a like a species -rich grassland and kind of a rural
communities are those early communities which come through on the on these types
of sites that have been left so yeah ecologically it would be make no
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 1:06:30
difference to remove the concrete or not. And sorry Annie who are you advising the
planning team or the estates team? Planning team the planning team. So you
or set by advice within the planning department.
Thank you.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:06:43
Sorry, could I just ask,
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:06:45
would you say ecologically it would make no difference?
Are you saying that it would make no difference
ecologically to remove the concrete?
So, yes, I suppose if you're wanting to restore the site,
the importance, I suppose, for habitats
is to have like a low nutrient substrate,
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 1:07:06
whether that be soil or you can have different kinds of substrates to create different habitats.
But you could remove the concrete and put something back,
or you could just put something on top of the concrete. So, ecologically you could do either,
but I do appreciate how if you don't need to remove the concrete, yeah, that might be an easier option.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:07:27
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:07:31
Can I just clarify a point? On the 2014 restoration plan, most of the hard
standing is to be retained so that's not a change in the current application.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:07:44
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:07:48
Any further questions? Councillor Townsend. Sorry just one more. Picking up on the
points that Councillor Emmett made and apologies if I've missed this but what
what happened to the planting of the trees and the different plants that he
referred to? Does that exist somewhere and is that still an obligation for the
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:08:12
council to fulfil? So this application is seeking amendments to the parcel
that's highlighted in green and I understand that he was referring to
planting that falls outside of that area so that will stay in play. The
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:08:28
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:08:31
requirement for that still remains but remains unfulfilled presumably if that's
the case I haven't actually heard of that to be honest but yeah if that's the
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:08:37
case
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:08:39
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:08:43
Councillor Mungo sorry Councillor Pugh. Thank you Chairman I just want to clarify and I
know the officers would come back on this I think it's important to note that
any application by the council or indeed some of its employees is required to come to the committee
for transparency
and there's many occasions where we've seen it where we have the applicant being the council
but as a planning authority and we have to look at it separately
I just think we need to reinforce because I've sat on a number of committees
We did some recently where we're looking at care homes for children. They are applicants by the council and
and we as a planning committee had to look at it from that point of view.
So I just want to reinforce that so people fully understand there is a demarcation between the two.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:09:33
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:09:44
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:09:46
Any further questions of officers? We have a B &G officer here as well. Any further questions? No?
Then would somebody like to open the debate?
Councillor Phealy?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:10:14
Yes, we've been in great detail with the application. Looking at it in isolation is one thing, looking
to the next stage might be another, but I think there's lots of opportunities there
and clearly where it's available to the public it's important that's maintained as we know
and also to develop certain aspects of it such as a car park. So I'm quite happy with
I've heard, I've listened to all parts of it,
and I'd be more than happy to support
the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:10:45
Councillor Moore?
Cllr David Moore - 1:10:52
Yeah, I'd like to second the officer's recommendations.
You know, I think this is very much
a Section 73 housekeeping application.
You've got the same restoration in state backstop as well.
You know, I've heard the concerns on soil, for example,
and like I say, I'm very happy with the Office's recommendations,
but I'm also open to hearing if people want to provide an extra safeguard with the soils
and minerals plan, but then you mentioned about, you know, that will be dealt with later
down the line with the conditions as they stand are robust.
So I am very much satisfied by that.
So I'm very happy to second this application, but happy to hear from members.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:11:34
Council Member Munger.
Thank you Chair.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:11:37
Unlike previous speakers, I can't say that I am happy.
It seems to me that this application is no more than a device to enable further things to happen.
It seems to me it just takes away all of the necessary requirements for managing this site and making it into a country park.
It's already accessible to people but it does need to be finished off if you like.
We've waited 14 years. I think there are lots of questions to be asked that have nothing to do with the planning aspects.
but the fact that here we are 14 years on since the original application and none of this has been carried out.
And now at a stroke you want to create a separate planning application and we've heard from the officer that it's a case of either or.
So we're placing the council in a position where it can just totally ignore the original planning consents
and move on to and utilise the section 73 application instead of rather than in parallel with.
So I remain particularly concerned about that and interested to hear what others think.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:13:13
Councillor Chilvers and then Councillor Townsend.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:13:16
Yes, I'm happy with the recommendation here
that we have in front of us.
I think the situation has now moved on
from the original restoration plans.
They're no longer relevant or deliverable.
For instance, the main sewer impact is a factor
that needs to be considered.
Also, I think the ecological advice
that the best thing for the soil
is just to leave it undisturbed. So I'm comfortable with the recommendation.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:13:48
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:13:51
Councillor Townsend. Thank you. I'm deeply concerned about the precedent this sets
and the fact that we are essentially just setting aside an enforcement action
to grant a new permission, particularly that it is the council's enforcement
action against them and the council is setting that aside. I think we have to
seriously ask ourselves if this was a third party would we be treating this in
the same way I think not and I remain deeply concerned about the message that
sends and the precedent that that sets and I would be interested to hear what
my fellow councillors think on that point.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:14:27
Councillor Gorman then Councillor Waters.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:14:29
Very kind Chairman. I'll allow my colleague Dick Staw to go first please.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:14:36
Yeah, I think where we are with this and what's being picked up is that obviously when there
is an enforcement action, obviously any applicant can come forward to try and put a new planning
application in so that actually it can deal with the breaches and to some extent that
is what is happening here. So that quite often happens when you've got enforcement action.
So that's not unusual because obviously you're looking to see whether there is another way
or there is another approach. But it's at what point has that gone to an extreme to
actually try and move things forward. I think some things on the site have changed over
time and there is the ecological advice in terms of disturbing soil but yes as I
think Councillor Townsend said some of that is sheared through accident and that
things have been left for years it's probably the sort of thing which would
have been said of bomb sites in London after about 15 years that they they
suddenly became naturalised and buddleier actually is probably one of the
that was used completely there.
So I think some of that has happened by accident.
Whether that would have been what we would have wanted
or the design of it for the long term is not messy,
but it's leaving us with something.
I think there is the issue with the high pressure
sewage pipe that goes through it,
which does limit some of the things that can be done.
There are questions still that are quite sorted out
in terms of ensuring that if on the fencing and things like that, which are going to be
done to stop dogs and the public from getting onto the site, basically that could have some
detrimental effects unless measures can be included for badgers or for other species
to be able to get onto the site.
So that there are some some areas here which are which are not
They're not clear. I'm happier that we're not making some special
Position because it's Bucks Council who are applying and that actually if there are amendments
So actually what we're going to if it's agreed what we are agreeing to is what needs to be followed
and
So overall I think there are some reservations and some difficulties with this.
So I'm waiting to hear what other people have to say.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:17:29
I've got Councillor Gough and then Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:17:32
Right, can I, Chairman. So I'm going to follow some of our colleagues and say this would set a little bit of a president.
you know, a third party could be treated different ways,
and we do tend to see that in the public domain
against the council chairman.
But, you know, I'm a very keen person
to see sites like this regenerated to become greener
and places of health and wellbeing
that people can go and enjoy.
I must admit, when we, that's why I asked the question,
who went to the site visit,
because I never knew that was there,
and I found it quite amazing to see
such a little, you know, a beautiful green patch out there with the lake and everything.
So it's a shame that this has been allowed to carry on as it has done.
I think it's quite poor that it's been allowed to get to this point where it has to be questioned
and planning has to come ahead again.
Well, it wasn't done previously, but I'm keen to support the application and what the officers
have put through because, as I say, the quicker we get that job done, and I hope it does get
done quicker this time that the public of Buckinghamshire and Fairview and
Coney joy that site.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:18:48
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:18:52
Councillor Huxley. Thank you Chairman. Really reiterating what Councillor Gormans
just said I think it was important to actually go on the site visit to
to actually see what was there.
They say time is a great healer,
but in this instance, it was an eye -opener
to see the growth that was on the site,
which would suggest there isn't a huge amount of work
required in that particular area.
I too will be supporting this,
and hope others can do.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:19:33
Councillor Inge.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:19:39
Listening to colleagues' contributions,
I've taken the view effectively that I don't think that,
well, I think that the office's recommendation is sound.
I think there are learnings to be taken from this,
from the council, how we've ended up in this position,
But I think we can look at this as it is at its,
this application on its own.
And I think I will be supporting the officer's
recommendation.
But can I also add, I think maybe we should,
as chairman of this committee or deputy chairman
of the committee, to write to the relevant cabinet member
to ensure that this does not happen again.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:20:18
Thank you.
Well if there's no further indications to speak, we go to the vote, the officer's recommendation.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 1:20:34
Chairman, can I just clarify, can I just clarify whether members are removing the word substantial from condition 2?
Is that part of the recommendation?
You requested to remove the word substantial.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:20:51
Yes, I formally moved that we do that.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:20:54
So with that condition amended,
the recommendation is of the officer's recommendation
is approval.
So can I have a proposer and seconder?
Proposer, seconder.
It's been proposed by Councillor Ficci
and seconded by Councillor.
So votes for?
Six.
Three.
Abstain?
One.
So the motion for it is carried.
Do you want to have a break?
Yes, I'll have a break.
Yeah. We'll have a come from break for 10 minutes.
Ten minutes.
Okay.

4 CM/0010/25 - Spade Oak Quarry, Marlow Road, Little Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3SB

Cllr Mark Turner - 1:21:47
Thank you, everyone.
We now move to item four, application number CM001125, page 25 of the agenda pack.
I can see all our speakers are here.
So we'll start with our case officer, Faye Mejian,
to introduce the report on the application.
Thank you, Faye.
Thank you.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 1:22:25
I'll just draw your attention to the agenda supplement.
There's a slight tweak to the recommendation, paragraph 9 .1.
So it's that recommendation that you'll be looking at
and some tweaks to some of the conditions.
In addition to that, my colleague has pointed out that condition three, I need to define what months are winter and what months are summer.
So we'll do that in the condition to be 1st November to 31st March for winter.
And that's related to the car park and security.

5 CM/0011/25 - Spade Oak Quarry, Marlow Road, Little Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 3SB

So this application is for creation of a car park, footpaths and other suitable alternative
natural green space, also known as sang, infrastructure to facilitate the use of the land as a sang.
So the application includes a car park for 25 car parking spaces, including three wheelchair
accessible spaces, cycle parking, new footpaths, signage, bins, information
boards and a bird hide. So this plan shows the site highlighted in yellow in
the context of Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park. So the principle of
improving visitor access to Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park and Spadoke
Lake in particular is well established in policy local plan policy RUR4 and
the Little Marlowe Lakes SPG which sets out the vision for Little Marlowe Lakes
Country Park. Because the site is already in use as publicly accessible open space
incorporating many rights of way this application is not seeking a change of
use. So just back to the aerial photo, it's the same one but Spade Oak Lake is in
middle with the spit in the middle of the lake which is not accessible to the
general public but is accessible to various groups such as Chiltern Rangers
as permitted by the local authority. To the west of that is Little Marlowe Thames
sewage treatment works. To the west is Coldmore Home Lane, East sorry,
Coldmore Home Lane which currently accesses, connects Marlow Road to the Thames path here.
Can you see my cursor? Oh no. And beyond that is Abbotswood and Wellend conservation area
and on the western side is Little Marlow village, Little Marlow conservation area
and that is positioned to the north of Thames water sewage treatment works.
Running along the south of the lake is the railway that connects Marlow to Bournend,
and south of that is the River Thames, and on the northern side of the River Thames is the Thames Path.
So the site location plan is shown here in red.
It's a bit of a doughnut shape because it excludes the lake and it excludes the spit,
so no changes are proposed to that.
It also excludes on the western side properties that are located on the moor,
that's the lake house and moor cottages.
And it also excludes the railway, but includes the parcel south of the railway that meets the Thames,
and it excludes the existing car park.
So this plan shows the proposed infrastructure.
I think you've all got one printed, which is useful because I doubt you can
see the detail on that, but the proposal includes new pathways, enhancements to
existing pathways, both public rights of way and permissive paths, picnic benches
and bins, signage and information boards, a bird hide, native trees and planting
and the whole scheme will result in a 10 % increase in BNG. So one of the
The interior of Forsang is a minimum 2 .3 circular walk
and this, the black dotted line, highlights a 2 .7 circular walk
which avoids the Thames water sewage treatment works.
This plan highlights in purple the existing rights of way
and on the right hand side the dashed lines are permissive paths.
So although the application does meet the minimum criteria
for 2 .3 circular walk, avoiding Thames water sewage
treatment works, there are other walking routes
that could be taken.
Within the infrastructure, I haven't got a cursor,
but within the infrastructure, there's new pathways
proposed to run parallel with the moor,
which is sort of in Little Marlowe, so that's located in the western portion,
northwestern portion of the green area, and then a new pathway that runs
parallel with Michalic Road, which connects, I should have pointed that out,
sorry, that connects Marlowe Road with Marlowe Sewage Treatment Works. It runs
through the car park and then just east of the car park there's an existing
footbridge which takes you up to either the public right -of -way to the north or
the permissive path which is on the southern loop. Here's some examples of
the pathways that will be installed in the northern and western portion of the
site. We do recognise that the spit has ecological value and we note that
there's been concerns around the increase in visitor numbers having a
negative impact on existing ecology but there are recommended to conditions to
mitigate those impacts and that includes the dog proof fence that runs around the car park
as we've discussed in the previous application, increased planting and some dead hedging
extension to the original easternmost bund, restricted access areas for sensitive wildlife
on the spit which will remain not accessible to the public. It currently has a gate but there'll
and a construction environmental management plan.
I've just got a couple of photos of the site.
The top two are actually from the Thames,
on the Thames path, either end of the site.
The first one's the western end,
the second one's the eastern.
The bottom left image is views across the lake,
and the bottom right image is the existing car park
on Coldmore -Holm Lane.
So just a point of clarification.
In practise, a sang will only be created if the long -term management, that's 80 years, was secured along with funding.
And it's anticipated that the funding will come from the B2 developments at Hollands Farm in Bournend,
and that funding would need to be secured in the Section 106 for those applications.
A sang would only be created after the funding is secured and when the works set out in this
application for the necessary infrastructure has been completed.
So this application is the first step which could result in a sang at Spadoke Lake.
So the recommendation is for approval subject to the various conditions and the signing
of an MOU, which will be signed by the council, which will ensure the works are carried out
in a timely manner and that funding can be secured in line with a management plan.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:30:42
Thank you Faye. So now we have public speaking and first we'll hear from Councillor Anna
Crabtree. Please come to the table and once the timer starts you have three minutes. Thank
Thank you.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:31:02
Thank you again for allowing me to speak on this proposal,
as mallow clearly falls within the five kilometre
catchment area for the sang.
One of the unusual things to note about this site
is that it is not a nature reserve.
It is full of wildlife, highly valued by groups
such as the Bucks Bird Club and Wild Mallow,
renowned as a site for bird watching
and has had over 180 different bird species
recorded at the lake, but in the recently launched local nature recovery strategy,
it is listed merely as an area that could become important for biodiversity.
Given the site's history already covered, one has to wonder whether there is a
reason that it has not yet been designated. However, the fact remains that
this is not a nature reserve. It is simply a site stuffed full of wildlife,
in particular, water birds that like to nest on the ground. To truly understand
level of biodiversity on this site, a full survey should be completed following industry standards.
I note that the latest ecology report states that the planning conditions should be imposed with
regard to a habitat management and monitoring plan and an access -free area around the spit.
It will be essential that these include tight controls for dogs.
For the many locals who already visit this site, they know that it is not a great place to walk a
dog. The Quarry Lake is cold, deep and sometimes affected by toxic algae. There are anglers and
birdwatchers who dislike being disturbed by dogs,
and there is limited open space for a dog to run around.
The commentary provided in the Tsang Criterion Assessment
that dogs can be taken from the Spadoke car park
to the Tsang Path off -lead is not something I would ever do.
It involves walking along a reasonably busy country lane
with no pavements and past a pub.
The loop proposed for the Tsang
also includes a stretch by Michalik Road,
which is used by tankers and trucks
travelling in and out of the sewage treatment works,
and similarly has no pavements.
I therefore have serious reservations about the suitability of this site for high numbers of dog walkers,
the adequacy of safeguards being put in place to prevent ground -nesting birds being disturbed by dogs,
and how the interaction between different site users will play out.
The Council reports tell us that the site can absorb three times as many visitors as it currently takes.
Given the Spadoke car park is frequently overflowing and the proposed new car park is even smaller,
this seems unlikely in practical terms.
Trebling the number of visitors to Spadoke Lake will require a comprehensive management plan,
daily on -site monitoring for those not following the rules, such as littering, staying in the car park after dark or dog fouling,
and strict controls to avoid dogs being off -leads in inappropriate areas.
If the committee are minded to approve this application, I would ask members to look carefully at what conditions are needed,
in particular the conditions recommended by the Council's Ecology experts to ensure no avoidable harm comes to protected species on site,
to meet the requirements for further biodiversity net gain,
and to allow locals to continue to enjoy this open green space in the future.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:33:54
Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of clarification?
No?
Thank you.
We next have Councillor Penny Drayton speaking. You have three minutes, Councillor Drayton.
Public Speakers - 1:34:42
Thank you, Chair. Before I begin, can I just suggest the committee look at page 31 of their
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:34:47
reports because I'll be referring to there for 31 and onwards. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:35:01
Thank you chair. Hello again. This area is described in the report as Little Marlow
Lakes Country Park and was originally envisaged to cover an area multiple times
larger than the area now in discussion. I feel this is misleading as it's a
a country park or a collection of lakes. The committee needs to keep this in mind
a picture of simply what it is a small single lakeside area
peaceful tranquil ideal for wildlife birds flora and fauna which thrives
there. Whilst there are footpaths around it's
not widely used and has areas and well naturally protected.
Page 31 onwards you'll see a chart which with the requirements of sang which all
seems fine and everything compliant. I'd like to offer a realistic take on
some of these through local knowledge especially the essential criterion.
Please feel welcome to question me further on any of these if you wish
clarification. Parking's mentioned several times and two car parks are
referred to even called dedicated car parks. One of these car parks already
exists and is used beyond capacity with cars ending up in the road for the
access to Thames path and other areas which are not necessarily Spadoke Lake.
Access from that car park is down the dangerous country lane with no footpath
and blind corners. It is neither safe nor suitable to be promoted for access. Most
importantly it is not available to be dedicated to this SANG application.
There is obviously a thought that the existing car part will be needed in
addition to the new one or why would it be continually mentioned? Perhaps because
the new one is also expected to get overused by people when wanting to
access TEMS and won't be any use to the SANG either. Footpaths must be stable and
well maintained. There are several muddy and flooded large areas to footpaths
during the winter months which would make them inaccessible to many people.
The only solution would be made them hard standing for long stretches which
would not be suitable either.
A simple acknowledgement in the notes
does not give it clear recognition of the severity
in some parts.
Must be largely unrestricted for dogs to roam freely.
Much the roots in area will need to keep dogs on leads.
In off -lead areas, fences will ruin the open feeling
of the nature reserve and stop wildlife roaming.
Without fences, dogs could harm wildlife.
And why does open water ensure it's
interactive to dog walkers?
That doesn't even seem to make sense,
other than suggesting that the dogs can go in the shallows
where the water birds roost.
And finally, most pertinently, the essential requirement
for no unmitigated unpleasant intrusions
is literally on the side of sewage treatment works.
Despite the path not being on the open fence line,
the smell doesn't stop there.
Throughout the year, the smell from the treatment work,
sometimes chemicals, but often of literally human faeces,
hangs around the whole area.
How can this create a desirable and pleasant location to visit?
These are all essential requirements for a sang
and not actually met.
Is this truly a suitable alternative natural green space
for burner beaches?
It seems to just be doing framed as such
through pressure and expectation
and desperation from developers.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:37:49
Thank you, Councillor Drayton.
Does anybody have any questions of clarification
from the speaker?
Councillor.
Chairman, thank you very much.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:38:04
So you've argued that the site is not practical
to serve as a SANG.
I think Councillor Seale took the argument quite seriously
and wanted to test it properly.
However, I know that the Hollands Farm allocation
in the Wickham District local plan
basically says that this is an adopted allocation.
And my understanding is SANG mitigation
needs to be within five kilometres of the site.
My understanding again is, and please correct me
if I'm wrong, is that this is the only site
within that radius that has been assessed
by Natural England as being suitable.
So my question is, if you're saying that this site
is not suitable, is not practical,
do you have any alternatives that meets
Natural England's SANG requirement
that's publicly accessible, of sufficient size,
and yeah, just looking forward to your thoughts on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:39:04
It's an interesting question.
I don't think, I think it kind of highlights the point
of are we making it suitable to fulfil
what the requirement is?
Because if the sang has to be available for Holland's farm,
this is the only place that's been identified and now we're saying that
these things apply when they don't? If there isn't a saying available or
suitable that's as simple as it is. In answer your question, no, I don't have
somewhere else to suggest as alternative but that doesn't mean that the committee
should say that this is okay we'll make do.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:39:45
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:39:51
Yes, sorry I think we're looking at the thing in front of us particularly rather
than subjective as to where another sand could go. I don't think that's... but if
you want to ask another question.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:40:00
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:40:04
Councillor Waters. There's a couple of areas I wanted to talk about. Car parking
also visited the site and the area that the additional area or new area for the
car park could be extended so there could be more space there because it's
a large concrete area and only a limited part of that was going to be used.
So are you making the point that actually the provision should be
greater from the start? That's sort of the first question and then I'm going to come
on to the sewage part later if we can.
Public Speakers - 1:40:44
Thank you. I'm just interested as to why two car parks are constantly
referenced if it's thought the 25 spaces are enough and I think there is this
unknown situation where car parking does already fill the one car park there's a
strong possibility that everyone that used the second car park won't actually
be benefiting from the sang and therefore the sang isn't fulfilling its
situation now it's not to me to determine the if the car park should be
made bigger if that's, you know, it was discussed and it was deemed that 25 spaces enough.
But then why do we keep referencing another car park?
I think in acknowledgement that everything around there gets used for the Thames path
and therefore there isn't really parking for the Sanks.
There would be no way of differentiating who's doing what.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:41:40
So just coming back on that.
So the point you're making is that because the second car park, the Spadoe car park is not part of the site,
we should really just be considering the one that is part of the site. Is that the point?
Public Speakers - 1:41:56
Well yes, because the existing car park cannot take any extra cars anyway, so it shouldn't even be mentioned, I don't think, or taken into consideration.
it's the worry that the people that overflow from that will also go to the
next car park but it shouldn't it's it is referenced about four or five times
in different essential parts and it's not a car park in this application it is
an existing car park it's not dedicated to the site which it says it is and the
car parking for the site I think in reality knowing the area will get used
for the Thames path.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:42:33
Okay, I'm gonna note that down and ask on technical questions
a little bit about that.
The second question is about the sewage plant,
which we know that it's there, it sits on the map.
When we were there, obviously maybe in the time of year,
there wasn't any particular smell from it,
but obviously as a local, you're saying that there is,
and that is one of the clear essentials
that sits here on this sort of tick list
that we need to go through.
Is that something where you say that is a regular issue,
or it's something that is sporadic when they're actually
doing some particular work?
Public Speakers - 1:43:12
I'd say it was regular.
I can't give you figures how often or when anyone that
walks anywhere in that vicinity regularly
will be able to tell you they can smell it at times.
There have been incidents, because right back
at the start, there was the consideration
of the path going past the sewage plant and we've got videos and footage of raw sewage coming out
over that actual pathway and that actually went into the lake as well. It's not something that's
referenced here because the path has been moved but certainly there is history with the sewage
plant that with overflow and stuff there is issues into that area and the smell can sometimes be
incredibly ripe and very unpleasant.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:44:02
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Thank you, Councillor Drayton.
Thank you.
For the record, Councillor Drayton has now left the chamber
And we'll now hear from Councillor Stuart Wilson.
You have three minutes.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:44:32
Policy RUR4, the Wickham local plan
could not have been more explicit
in setting out the use of the land
stretching across much of Little Marlowe.
By Wiltshire, Council has failed residents
in not designating a country park
either across the entire area
or indeed the smaller area
because it has focused all its effort
on trying to create this sang first.
Those are the conversations we've had
with the local parks team.
It now risks fulfilling RUR4 in creating a sang
across the entire 329 hectare area which was envisaged.
Instead it's pursued its own ambition
in pursuit of removing the burden
of the planning condition costs
and constraining a sang to a much smaller area
of 23 hectares, less than 10 % of that considered in RUR4
around public rights of way and permissive paths, as you saw from the officer.
In doing so, it's contrived as Hang Scheme that defies belief.
You'll see a requirement for a minimum 2 .3 kilometre circular walk.
With the stench of the sturge works, this meant it could not go around the lake
and along Stinky Alley, as the locals referred to it,
as originally attempted, but not acceptable to Natural England or anyone else.
So we have this strange sausage walk at the top of the lake
that almost allows walkers and dogs to greet each other from the sides, which is far from ideal.
The aroma test, by the way, as has also been referenced,
were only conducted at certain points across the site, and only with certain wind directions.
It does vary, and it does change, and it certainly does preclude being able to use all of the pathways as a sang,
not obviously from a general public point of view that were referenced in the presentation.
So please do ask why only certain testing was done at certain times. It does stink at
times and that is unacceptable for a sang. The sang is heavily reliant on a public car
park in Coldmore Home Lane that is already heavily used on a beautiful day like today,
particularly in the summer for people who are walking on the river or want to use the
it is inconceivable that there is sufficient capacity on a busy day, a beautiful day like
today.
Perhaps the greatest travesty of this contrived sang is the threat to the ecology, and particularly
the wildlife in one of Buckinghamshire's best bird sanctuaries.
This bird sanctuary attracts a wide variety of extremely rare and more common species,
which use the whole area for nesting during migration seasons.
The sang requires an open area for dog walkers where dogs can roam freely off the lead.
Historically, the area we all know as a spit has had additional protection further inland,
above the spit, with protected area passed through the area.
The proposed sang will march through this protected area.
Dogs and their owners will be expected to read all the signs and to ensure that they
do not breach the fencing, which we know is often breached by deer and badgers leaving
gaping holes.
Birds do not read signs and neither do dogs.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:47:35
Thank you Councillor Wilson. Does anybody have any questions of clarification?
No. Thank you Councillor Wilson.
Councillor Acres, thank you. You have three minutes.
Public Speakers - 1:48:04
Good morning. LNPC notes that this report states that this application should be seen
as an important first step in the site becoming a sang,
for which housing developments can rely on for mitigation.
But it is appropriate to consider now
whether the land is, in fact, capable of becoming a sang.
We recognise that methodology has
chosen to tick the required boxes to prove
suitability, a movable feast.
We would particularly question, as has been said,
that the revised circular route does not, in fact, mitigate
the acknowledged significant odour nuisance caused
by the serious treatment works.
Odour nuisance is frequently reported by Little Marlow
residents, including myself, who are situated well away
from the proposed sang.
As already said, we also fear that the proposed sang does not,
as required, allow dogs to be exercised freely and safely
while preserving sensitive habitat.
We also note that the entire length
of the northern footpath in the Tsang
runs alongside land which is included
as provisional grey belt in the local plan.
An essential criterion of Tsang
is if it's perceived as semi -natural
with little intrusion of artificial structures.
We're not convinced either that sufficient consideration
has been given to the impact of the proposed bins, benches and picnic tables.
Without a detailed waste management strategy, this poses a risk to local amenity, wildlife and landscape.
Our experience at Spadoke Wharf and Coldmore Home Lane suggests that these things often generate
significant litter and fly tipping when bins are not serviced frequently enough.
We are extremely concerned about the negative impact of an extra 1 ,900 visitors to the Sang
on the Spadoke car park in Coldmore Home Lane, as has been discussed.
This car park is currently leased from Bucks Council by Little Marlowe Parish Council on a long lease.
Yesterday, at 12 noon when I drove past, this car park was completely full on a Wednesday
and there were eight cars already parked on Coldmore Home Lane.
And weekends and summer is even busier.
There's no doubt that this car park is not fit for the purpose outlined in this SANG application.
Parking on the lane creates serious hazards, obviously, for both vehicles and pedestrians,
and impedes emergency access.
Despite the additional 25 parking spaces proposed,
visitors will choose to park near the pub and near the river and so it needs a
comprehensive traffic and parking management plan to address these impacts.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:51:17
So we ask in its current state that the council refuses this application. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Acres. Does anybody have any questions of the...
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:51:25
Councillor Gough. Thank you very much. It's lovely to hear that your area is so
popular and that area is extremely nice. So, and I understand, so your car park gets quite
full quickly and they're proposing 25 places. We know there's ample space. Do you feel that
they should release the rest of the parking area to maybe combat some of your problems
that you have there?
Public Speakers - 1:51:52
Possibly, but I'm still not convinced that the attractions of parking by the pub, by
the river are going to beat the attractions of parking down the lane close to the sewage
works at the other end. So I'm not sure that that would make an awful lot of difference.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:52:09
How do you feel that, what else could be sort of completed to help with parking issues down
that area? Do you like double yellow lines down that line or down that road?
Public Speakers - 1:52:23
We already have double yellow lines down the bottom end of the road,
which then just pushes the problem further up the lane until it hits the main road.
So, I mean, we could talk about that, but I don't think that would solve it,
because people want, rightly, to come and walk by the river in our beautiful land.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:52:45
Why wouldn't you?
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:52:47
Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:52:51
Councillor Townsend.
You mentioned the displaced parking, well the parking along the lane at noon in March on a Thursday.
What does that picture look like on a weekend in the middle of the summer on a nice day?
Public Speakers - 1:53:06
Well I've got photographs which I can't show you.
It's absolutely horrendous because it's a narrow lane and then the cars park on the non -yellow line bits sometimes, sometimes on the yellow lines as well.
And I seriously doubt that a fire engine, because of the nature, and roads eroded on either side,
that a fire engine or another emergency vehicle would be able to get past on a sunny Sunday already.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:53:36
We'll now hear planning statement.
I think is that right?
No, no, sorry, I beg your pardon.
Public Speakers - 1:53:59
So, no, Councillor Wilson, I beg your pardon.
Perhaps one of the most surprising factors in all of this over the many years I've been involved in this
is a substantial about -turn from Natural England.
They had vigorously opposed anything less than the entire RUR4 area across Little Marlowe
as being acceptable as Sang.
Indeed, the original shadow habitat regulation assessment and appropriate assessment for
a Sang for Hollands Farm covered this entire area.
Buckinghamshire Council, needing to get off the hook to fund or amend its planning conditions,
had other ideas.
Strangely, inexplicably, Natural England changed its tune.
Even then, an EIR request demonstrated that they were seeking additional planting and screening,
as well as assurances of non -development on the land to the north of the application site,
under separate ownership and now, as has been said, identified as provisional grey belt land in the latest Green Belt Assessment.
Finally, the taxpayer forked out £1 million for this site and will have to fork out £100 ,000
more to fund the restoration works.
Will Buckinghamshire Council allow a private developer to use this site free of charge
as SANG, or will it levy a SANG tariff, potentially estimated at £16 ,000 per dwelling, to refund
the taxpayer?
If like I do, you believe that Buckinghamshire Council
should deliver the sang as envisaged by policy RUR4
and policy B2 for Hollands Farm,
then please refuse this application for this pound shop
or even freebie solution sang.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:55:43
Thank you, Councillor Winston.
Does anybody have any questions for the speaker?
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Councillor.
We'll now hear a written statement
from Little Marlowe Lakes Community Partnership
in support of the application.
Reminder that committee members
will not be able to ask points of clarification.
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 1:56:09
Again, we support the principle
of developing a sang at Spadoke Lake,
set out in applications 10, 25 and 11, 25.
The allocation of sang status
is compatible with the council's policy of designating the site of the country park,
where our view is that the SANG would help protect the council's spadoke lands from
inappropriate development and contribute to funding, amenity and environmental infrastructure
needed to achieve that policy.
Our representation however also highlighted reservations on some points of detail. The
Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer - 1:56:37
following points in particular have not been explicitly addressed by subsequent amendments
of the case officer's report.
One, as we pointed out in relation to application CM -001 -025, it has not been made explicit
that the buffer zone between the Southern Bund
and the Spit Peninsula is intended to be included
in the area to which public access will be restricted.
And two, we also pointed out in relation to CM -001 -025,
that the proposed restoration scheme
for the bulk of the yard area south of the fence line
has been designed as a combination
of potentially valuable natural habitats.
It logically, therefore, should be a dog -free area.
The remainder of the yard area to the east of that
shown to be restored and the woodland area between that
and the lake edge is shown as open to unrestricted access
from the east.
This would allow uncontrolled entry to the whole area
by dog walkers wandering off
from the nominated Sank footpath,
potentially causing harm to wildlife habitats.
As the council's commentary on the Sank criteria states,
quote, the character of the whole site
is not conducive to free roaming dogs.
If the council is minded to approve the application,
its decision should recognise that these shortcomings
will need to be addressed,
possibly by way of condition or at a later stage
of the design and consultation process.
Cllr Mark Turner - 1:57:46
Thank you. We will now hear from Mr. Charles Brocklehurst speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Public Speakers - 1:57:55
Charles, you have three minutes when you're ready.
Thank you, Chair. Somewhat repeating what I said earlier, the application follows the Council's decision in 2025 to designate Spadoke Lake as a country park,
with an ambition to extend this designation to cover the wider area of Little Marlow Lakes,
subject to other land owners agreement in the future.
It means the Lake will, in due course, come under the management of the Council's Country Parks team.
They're working, as I said earlier, with the groundwork trust on habitat improvements on the Spit,
the publicly inaccessible island in the lake that attracts so many waterfowl.
This work is being funded by Thames Water Grant to the Community Partnership.
To improve the visitor experience of the rest of the lake also requires
investment. For much of the year the lakes perimeter pass and the public footpath
across the adjacent fields to the north are a muddy mess. In summertime the
council's car park has inadequate capacity. Obtaining natural England
accreditation of the lake as a saying creates the potential to attract much
needed investment. In this regard the council's landowner is well aware of the
balance to be struck between nature and visitors. The council is retaining
Paul Frischmann, its ecology consultants, to produce both environmental and
construction management plans. They've also produced BNG proposals which
include woodland management that will reduce the impact of buddleia and
invasive species. To create and maintain the lake is a special place visitors
need to feel secure. CCTV was installed along with a tenant at the bottom of
Muschalit Road and this has prevented flight tipping. The plan is to close the
proposed new car park at night and height restricted. As has been noted the
hard standing on which the car park is to be sited is larger and
has scope to provide more parking if required. Future maintenance will include
active waste management. In conclusion this application along with the
approved restoration plan will with the right marketing and promotion transform
Chalet Road entrance to Spadote Lake into a new gateway to the River Thames by
providing new parking and footpath links thereby taking pressure off Colmore
home lane to give an opportunity for more people to enjoy Spadote Lake as a
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:00:18
special place. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody have any question of the
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:00:25
speakers? Councillor Feeley. Thank you Chairman. I just wondered, we've heard a lot about
parking and the need for, looks like, substantial parking.
Have you got any thoughts on that?
And also, what about other facilities,
such as toilets and any refreshment?
Is that something you would be considering?
Public Speakers - 2:00:42
Well, as I say, the area of hard standing
on the old gravel yard has potential
to provide considerably more than 25 spaces.
So we can deal with that,
probably under permitted development once the area is designated country park.
So we wouldn't have to come back for further planning permission for that.
In terms of additional facilities, we've often talked about a kind of phase one and a phase two.
And so certainly the ambition would be to provide some form of facilities
if the footfall gathers and justifies that.
But those facilities would be for later proposals.
Once, as I say, the Muschalit Road graveyard entrance has established itself and people,
and there's demand for such facilities.
The tenant at the bottom of Muschalet Road wants to try a kind of pop -up facility this summer.
It will be interesting to see whether that has any viability.
That pop -up has a cafe -type operation.
There is, from the original gravel yard, an existing septic tank drainage system on the entrance to the gravel yard.
and one thing we'll be looking at is whether that could be reconditioned and reused
and whether public conveniences could be made there.
Obviously they bring with them their own issues in terms of management and maintenance.
Yes, I think it could continue to evolve.
Subjects, as I say, to striking this balance between visitors and nature.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:02:40
Is there power to the site that you could use for vehicle charging for example?
Public Speakers - 2:02:47
Yes we did get power to the site but I'm not a sufficient expert to know whether
it's got enough potential for EV charging. Probably it has. So I'll take that away
and come back with an answer on that.
Council Townsend.
Thank you.
You mentioned this new car park being potential new gateway
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:03:15
to the River Thames and alleviating some of the Thames path
parking from the Spadoke car park.
What evidence are you using to make that statement?
Because I've heard from the other speakers,
you know, it's quite a long distance from the Thames Path. They have to walk down past the sewage treatment works.
I'm struggling to see how that is an alternative or would ease the pressure on Spadoke car park for
Thames Path walkers. I mean, I live locally myself and it's not an attractive proposition to me,
Public Speakers - 2:03:52
I have to say, especially with three small children.
Well, I'm a bit surprised by that.
I know everybody likes to park as close as possible
to their destination.
And if the Thames path is the destination,
then arguably, Coldmore Home Lane car park
is closer than Mushtahlek Road car park will be.
But we're proposing to complete the perimeter path
by putting a new section down the northwest corner
of the lake, which will be an attractive way down to Moore Lane. And yes, you're right
that from time to time when Thames Water clear out the cake, as they call it, the sludge
from the sewage works, and depending upon the wind direction, there are odour problems.
But apart from the fact that Moore Lane, as it becomes a footpath adjacent to the sewage works,
isn't a gravel track, an automatic track, I don't see that it's any less attractive than facing car parking problems at Colborne Home Lane.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:05:18
I just come back. There's also the fact that that link down from the
The lake path to the Thames path is often spends a couple of months of the year underwater
That field is that that's significant that suffers from significant flooding during a large portion of the year and is an impassable
path
So I just I don't think I'm struggling to see how it's feasible to be an alternative car park to the Spadoke car park
I'm not sure, I feel like there's a bit of a mis -selling there.
Public Speakers - 2:05:46
Well, it's not being created primarily for the Thames path,
it's being created primarily for the circular footpath,
which is a separate, but could be linked, trip.
And in terms of the flooding of that field,
we have looked at whether from the railway line
there should be a boardwalk across the area immediately south of the railway line,
because that's most prone to flooding.
But if that's flooded, then actually the Thames Path
is pretty grotty at that time of year.
I've seen children in tears trying to push bicycles
with wheels clogged with mud because it's so,
it's not a gravel track,
it is a muddy track across the fields.
So I think it's about people learning that there are alternatives to congestion
and I think it will actually benefit both the Circular Walk and people who want to extend that walk down to the river.
So I have to agree to differ with you there I'm afraid, Councillor.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:07:00
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:07:03
Thank you very much.
I might be off line here.
It might be more of been a question for an officer,
but you know, you're talking about the circle of walk.
I'm not quite sure what exactly the circle of walk,
but does that attach,
does that come from the Marlow Road down?
This little narrow road we keep talking about
with the traffic problems.
Be grateful.
Yes, when you come in down, where?
Oh, right. Yeah, I see. Yeah. I remember when we were down there, you could see the foot
part foot park coming across. I saw it when we come out that car park. It's a shame that
it doesn't go up to the Marlow Road to act as another footway there because they talk
about congestion to traffic down that road. Okay. Thank you very much.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:07:56
Do you want to respond, Charles? I was going to say that.
I think it should have been more of an officer.
I should have sort of pointed it there,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:08:03
but as I've talked about the circular walk,
it's just like, I'm just saying it's a shame
that it doesn't come down from the Marlowe Road
down onto that circular walk
that could suffer some of those problems.
But I also understand what you're saying about,
you know, these rights of way,
walkways do get extremely muddy.
I suggest some people come out to the rural area
two hours and see some of our rights of way
at the end of the day, more than welcome to.
But it you know it happens mud
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:08:30
Okay, thank you
If one other question, sorry
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:08:39
Sorry, I'm not sure whether this is a question for the officers or for Mr. Rockwell
But I wanted to come to the point in a report where we talk about access largely
Unrestricted plenty of space for dogs to exercise freely and safely off the lead being an essential
For the sanct. Is that an officer question?
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:08:55
Yeah I think so. This is questions of clarification of what's been said. Okay
Okay. Thank you. No other questions then. Thank you, Mr. Brocklehurst. So that brings us to an end of the public speaking. So thank you public speakers.
Do you now have any technical questions for the officers? If so, please raise your hand.
Councillor Moore, Councillor... Councillor Townsend. Sorry, let me just write these down. Let's start with Councillor Moore, Councillor...
Cllr David Moore - 2:09:28
Thank You chairman my clarification is regarding the habitat management and
monitoring plan how to reconcile that with the MOU so can we clarify that the
this HMMP will be maintained for no less than the 80 years to match the SANG MOU
or can we set a review mechanism at 30 years securing that continued stewardship
after so we can align the BNG delivery and the same delivery. Thank you.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:10:03
Just to clarify, the management plan that's attached to the MOU will be a lot
more detailed than just a plan. It will detail out how it's going to be managed
for the 80 years in term and including the funding. So would that align
Cllr David Moore - 2:10:20
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:10:21
with the 80 years then? Yes for 80 years. So there wouldn't need to be a
Cllr David Moore - 2:10:26
review clause in your view, halfway through.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:10:28
Councillor Townsend, oh sorry, no,
I beg your pardon, sorry, Councillor, you were next.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:10:38
Thank you.
It's a technical question.
There is an MOU that suggests MOU in place,
but this is effectively Council contracting with itself.
I understand, is that allowed?
And second, so what is the legal status of this MOU then?
Is it legally binding in court?
And what happens if the council,
as the landowner fails to comply,
what legal remedy would it be available to the council?
That's just for trying to find out.
I'm sure we've been here before.
I just want to clarify that again, given where we are at.
We certainly have been here before
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:11:16
with council applications.
We can't have a section 106 agreement as we would normally
because as you quite rightly say,
the council can't contract with itself
because it's not a separate legal entity.
So it's basically an agreement
between the directors concerned
and principally in this case,
although there are the directors involved as well,
but principally between the property direct, sorry, are you?
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:11:43
Yes, but my follow -up question would that be,
this is what I thought it might be,
MOUs are not enforceable, are they?
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:11:50
They're not enforceable in the courts,
but it would be a matter of public record.
It will go on the public access register.
And therefore, if there were any breach,
there would be a legitimate expectation
that the council would meet that requirement.
And therefore, the council itself could be subject
to judicial review if there was a breach of the MOU.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:12:16
And that will fall within the monitoring offices?
Yes. Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:12:20
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:12:24
I did, well, I had my earlier question, but I also have a question about the biodiversity
net gain report, and I would like to direct that to the officer here.
I feel there are a couple of issues in that report that potentially undermine the output
of it.
I see that it excludes protected species impacts.
It relies on surveys undertaken outside the growing season. It's highly dependent
upon future management plans that haven't yet been secured. I would like to
understand, I would like to know what your opinion is of that biodiversity net
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:13:11
gain statement and is it reliable? So just to clarify, so biodiversity net gain is
one specific ecological element that needs considering and it's in addition
into considering protected species.
So primarily it's like a compensation
and right down the end of the hierarchy.
So it's correct that you wouldn't have your species
issues in the biodiversity net gain report.
They would have been picked up in the ecological survey
report previously.
In terms of the time of year that the habitats were
surveyed, you're perfectly correct
that surveys should be in the summer in this instance
Because they use previous data and previous surveys as well and I feel like they have correctly
classified the habitats
At a scale appropriate to the site to enable us and so biodiversity net gain is about evidencing
enhancement to the habitat value the biodiversity value which is a legal requirement for all development now and
And I feel like they have undertaken sufficient
survey to demonstrate that as long as they do the habitat management, which is the condition
for the habitat management monitoring plan, they can uplift the value of the site as required
by the legislation.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:14:22
So do you feel, because one of the purposes of that report is to set out an accurate baseline,
you feel that without those things being taken into consideration, that sets an accurate
baseline for biodiversity net gain?
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:14:36
I consider that for the site and when you combine the surveys with the historic data, the records we have,
it's sufficient for this site and this application.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:14:47
So is that a separate analysis then that you have done, taking that into consideration and the previous surveys?
Or how has that process occurred?
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:14:53
Yeah, I suppose I've reviewed their biodiversity net gain report that has been submitted
and come to the conclusion that that is suitable and that the baseline they presented is sufficient.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:15:07
And may I ask my second question? I alluded to before, but I see from the report that it's an
essential criteria that you have that largely unrestricted access, plenty of space for dogs
to exercise freely and safely off the lead. And the report says while the character of the entire
is not conducive to free roaming dogs. The open water feature ensures it's
attractive to dog walkers. I don't think the attractiveness to dog
walkers necessarily is relevant to the criteria but I'm also struggling to
see where that largely unrestricted space is. We're talking about paths going
around the outside of a lake largely. I know that area well and I wouldn't say
it's a largely unrestricted space. So I'd like to understand why that's in the report. Thanks.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:15:54
Sorry, I think I've misunderstood that. You're looking at the criteria. The criteria is set
by Natural England and it's Natural England who will ultimately decide whether the site is
suitable for SANG at a time a housing development wants to rely on it for SANG and that will be done
through an appropriate assessment at that time. Having said that, the policy team have been in
talks with Natural England for quite a long time now, probably about eight over
eight years regarding SANG here and they are happy that it can operate as SANG.
In terms of dogs off leads, I've just put up the existing rights of way and the
permissive paths, they are all proposed to say as they are which is dogs off
leads so we're not proposing any changes to those particular pathways it's just a
a small element on the northwestern side where we're creating new pathways close to the spit area
that there looks to be a restriction on dogs on leads or some kind of screening, fencing, dry hedging, planting to restrict that access.
Does that answer your question?
I think so, thank you.
Alright, thanks.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:17:10
Councillor Waters next then, Councillor Huxley, Fiesley and Jones.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:17:14
I'm going to come back to the sewage issue and the smell and the assessments and when
they were done. Normally in the UK most of the wind direction is south west. That's my
assumption, I could be wrong. Which would, again just trying to get this in terms of
of how north, south, et cetera works.
The sewage works would be exactly in the wrong place
because it would just drift across, wouldn't it,
to that top section.
So how often do we believe there's an issue,
and when did we actually do the tests
in terms of the smell and potential smell in the area?
Because that, again, is one of these things on the list.
and though it is for future assessment, we need to be setting something up that works
and you may well have had discussions about this already.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:18:15
So as I said, the policy team have been working with Natural England for some time on this
and originally the 2 .3 kilometre walk just went around the lake and there were concerns
that that would then take you past the Thames Water Sewage Treatment Works.
So, ODAR surveys were carried out in 2023 and they came back that along that stretch
of public right of way there can sometimes be a problem with ODAR.
Which is why the alternative or current 2 .3 circular walk was proposed which requires
new pathways.
So originally the circular walk wouldn't have required new pathways adjacent to
Michelic Road. So whilst they're not identified in the 2 .3 kilometre walk to
meet the criteria, of course you can either choose or not to choose to walk
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:19:16
down that public right -of -way or take an alternative route. And so the new walkway
we don't consider is impacted by smell?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:19:22
No, the odour survey took place all around the lake,
but it just identified issues on that stretch
of right of way that runs adjacent to the sewage treatment
works between Little Marlow and the Thames path.
Sorry, could I interject there just for a second?
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:19:39
Actually, it didn't.
The odour didn't do the north of the site at all.
In fact, I can show you a map that actually shows where the odours were from 7, 8, 9, 10,
which is the top of the moor, and then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which is right over to the
far west -hand side.
So actually, there is no tests on that north part of the wall at all.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:20:13
That's very helpful. So you don't really know is the answer.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:20:16
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:20:21
Can I just clarify that there was only odour on the next to the Thames water?
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:20:28
Well, I can refute that as well because it's in the test. But also again, look, let's,
so it's your question, so I'll come back on that.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:20:35
It was very helpful your interjection there.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:20:40
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:20:43
Thank you Chairman, I think my question has been answered.
I was concerned about dogs roaming freely and interfering with wildlife and that sort
of thing, but without knowing specific areas where there is the restrictions and unrestricted
areas then I can't really comment further. Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:21:08
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:21:15
Okay thank you Chairman. It's probably a BMG question. In the memorandum of understanding,
what other organisations involved in it? So I'm thinking particularly like the
RSPB which we did in Kingsbrook because they were specialists in certain aspects of the
biodiversity. I just wonder whether that is something that from your point of view would
be a requirement.
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:21:50
I can pick up in terms of the management. So I believe it's just a condition for the
HMMP rather than the MOU.
So in the condition when they produce the habitat management
and monitoring plan, they would need
to specify who is going to be responsible for managing
the site.
And they would need to select somebody
who is competent to do that.
We can't specify a particular third party
because that's not within our ability to do so.
That would be for the applicant who's
writing the plan to identify how the management will
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:22:30
undertaken and ensure it's undertaken by somebody competent. Would you like to see
some funding from those other organisations to support whatever your
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:22:38
plans would be? We wouldn't be able to ask for that as part of the
consideration of this planning application.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:22:49
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:22:52
Cllr John Chilver - 2:22:55
Councillor Chilvers. Thank you. Yes, well a similar point about funding.
I'm sorry if I've missed it, but I can't see any sort of budget on the cost of all the
works involved and whether it could realistically be expected to be funded by the Hollands Farm
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:23:19
Section 106 funding? Has any work been done on that? So the report to cabinet it
was agreed at cabinet in January 25 that this site would be allocated for SANG
and there was some estimated costs in there. The developers at Hollands Farm
have seen that but that will be for the section 106 for Hollands Farm.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:23:45
Thank you and I had another question if I may, Chairman. It's about the parking.
There's obviously a big pressure on parking. I'm just wondering whether it
makes sense just to do the proposed 25 spaces car park or whether it makes
sense to extend it right from the start and include the additional hard standing to provide
additional capacity because it sounds as though there's going to be major pressure on parking.
Presumably there'd be economies of scale in developing a larger car park in one stage.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:24:21
The car parking number 25 is in line with the Natural England criteria which suggests
one space per hectare, the site's 23 hectares. That's what they anticipate will be required
for a sang of this size. There's nothing in this application that would mean additional
spaces can't come forward at a later date but this application is for 25 spaces.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:24:56
Councillor Gough. I'll read Councillor Rothers first.
Okay Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:25:01
Thank you Chairman, much of the questions I was going to ask seem to have been covered but perhaps
help me if you would with a better understanding of the relationship between the natural England requirements for a sang and this particular application.
It's clear that whilst the answer, there are 12 essential elements, three should have and five desirable.
Is there any criteria from Natural England as to how many of these should be satisfied and to what extent?
because in their response they don't actually make any reference at all to this.
It seems to be a substantial part of the report in terms of listing all of these requirements,
the criteria and the commentary on them. But Natural England just say no significant adverse
impacts on statutory designated sites.
So is this just an extract from a wider
National, Natural England response?
And what exactly do they mean by no adverse impact
on statutory designated sites?
The two things don't seem to tie up.
We've put in a lot of detail, or you've put into the report,
a lot of detail about the SANG criteria
and commentary on them, which has been significantly
challenged by members here today and speakers and yet there's no definitive
response on these issues from Natural England. Can you help me understand why?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:26:59
Yeah so the applications for the infrastructure that would be required
to create a sang but because there's no change of use involved here we won't be
A sang would only come forward if funding can be secured for 80 years,
and we anticipate that will happen on the Hollands Farm section 106 when it comes forward,
and when this infrastructure has been completed.
So at that point it may become a sang.
But for Hollands Farm application to be taken before committee,
it needs to go through an appropriate assessment process
where we will consult Natural England on the suitability of this site for sang
and it will be at that point that they confirm whether or not this site can be
used as sang. Okay.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:27:52
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:27:54
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:27:57
Councillor Gough, are you still here? Yeah, thank you very much. So I'd like to go back to the
officers again now please after my question to the gentleman there earlier.
So firstly, again, I'm picking up with Councillor Chilva over there, many of us.
I know the box says 25 car parking spaces, but when we all done that site visit, all
of us turned around and said, well, why doesn't it become a car park straight away within
the application despite what you have to work under rule?
But just a question I'd like to ask.
It's really good that you've linked up these new circular ways, et cetera.
But again, the question that keeps popping up is coming off that the Marlowe Road and
trying to walk down the little narrow road that goes down there is almost,
it's dangerous, impassable, whatever.
And then looking at these existing rights of way now, there's two at the top.
They come across the little Marlowe.
I'm just trying to understand why you haven't extended a right of way
to go from a circular walk up to the Marlowe Road.
Could it be a recommendation to put that in because you see all those other rights way people come down those
Walk down the road
So it was footway both sides and then cut down there and that would just take a little bit of danger away or people parking
Down, I don't know
Could it be a recommendation to take that forward
Well, I've just highlighted the public rights of way
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:29:28
Highway is also a public right of way. So any roads you can link them up
Are you but you could like where that road comes down?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:29:36
Just inside the field something you own the field
The the application includes the road that's highlighted in red on the site plan
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:29:47
But the field's either side of metallic roads are not in the council ownership. All right
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:29:54
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:29:59
Okay, just it was a suggestion that was all because it keeps coming up is dangerous. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for wasting time
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:30:03
I've got Councillor Waters and then Councillor Munger.
Mine was a quick one actually, it is coming back to the car parking, but it's not to change necessarily what you're proposing other than to add that could we not build in a review period.
Because obviously you've got the extra space, you don't know whether you're going to need it or not.
but maybe that we actually, once it's functioning, that a review period in terms of parking need is built in after, I don't know, one year, two years or whatever,
it being open to make sure we have assessed it correctly because then you could extend it.
So you don't necessarily, we don't know at this point what the need is going to be.
And I know you're hitting what, what's the requirement, but the space is there.
but I think it would just be really good to have a review once everything's up and running.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:30:51
Just to note, the Highway Authority were consulted on the application and said that 25 spaces are acceptable
and wouldn't have any impact on the wider network, so we need to take consideration of that.
I don't think I can review.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 2:31:07
I think you'd have to find a planning reason for the review.
What would the reason be? Because you can park on the Charlotte Road.
I've done that a number of times.
So is there a highway danger?
I mean, is that the concern?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:31:23
Well, I think I'm responding to the feeling
that you've got an alternative car park at one point.
We've got a new car parking coming in.
We don't actually really know what the usage is going to be
or the take -up is going to be.
And the unknown quantity at highways
would look at what they're thinking will be the case, but we don't really know. So what
we're looking at is saying, and what was discussed by the estates team was when we went to the
visit, the site, that that was there, and depending on the usage, had already been thought
about, that it could be extended really easily. So it's not like it's not being thought about,
is actually be nice to actually be recorded and say actually we would build in a period once it's up and running to say
Actually, we've got this right or we not I'm getting some some no's here, but I'm just trying to be logical
I
Don't see how you would achieve that on a legal basis
you've got an application before you
to create a car park of a specific size,
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:32:35
you're determining at this stage
whether you are granting that or not.
You can't say you'll want it this size,
but I want it bigger in a year's time
when I've reviewed it.
You wouldn't deal that with any other applicant.
That's only being suggested
because it's the council -owned land.
So if I think that is your concern,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:32:54
can I just finish?
It was suggested on the site, was it,
by the applicant, the council,
That this is what was in mind and it would be nice if that had been part of the application
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:33:05
Well, I think that when the the country park comes together that might be reviewed at that point
but can I suggest that the way to deal with it would be to either write to the
director of property and assets or to write to the cabinet member asking for a review after the period that you specify
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:33:23
It'd be good if any of the chairman would would take that on to do that
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:33:29
Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:33:31
Sorry, Chairman.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:33:37
I think on reflection, the point I was going to raise is perhaps for debate rather than a question.
Councillor Ng and Councillor Townsend, I have some questions myself as well.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:33:46
Thank you.
I just want to go back to the funding question, if I may, Chairman.
So my understanding is this is going to be funded
and maintained by a potential section 106
on Hollands Park, Hollands Farm,
which hasn't quite come through yet
or might never come through.
So, but the planning application permission,
if granted today can be implemented immediately, right?
So, but the finding mechanism to maintain it for 80 years
doesn't quite come through until Hollands Farm is approved.
So what is the council's contingency plan?
If Holland's firm does not proceed,
we might have answered that already,
but my question really is towards,
has the office has considered committing in writing
that we will not implement this planning permission
until the section 106 funding mechanism
for 80 years is in place.
Is that a consideration or has it been considered?
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:34:45
Yes, I mean it's tied into the MOU and Section 106, so the MOU will say that the development
won't take place until the funding is in place. The Council isn't going to expend the money
on this site until it has a funding stream available. That funding stream would be from
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:35:06
the development at Hollands Farm. Is the MOU going to be explicit in saying
that you know so what I'm trying to get is is that because the applicant is the
council we want to be very careful how we deal with this but if permission must
be granted and then MOU goes ahead is the MOU going to explicitly say that if
the council was to exercise the planning permission that it obtains if he
obtains it today only for Hollands Park sang I'm trying to say I'm trying to
avoid the council going through the back door to redevelop this if sang doesn't
Go ahead.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:35:40
So the application before you is for the creation
of a car park footpaths and other suitable
alternative natural green space infrastructure
to facilitate the use of the sang.
So it's for specific operational development
rather than a change of use.
Change of use isn't necessary to make it a sang
because it's essentially the same use
that it's a public area for public access and recreation.
Sorry, you're not letting me finish.
So that's one aspect.
So the MOU comes into effect before this permission is granted.
And then, but the development won't actually take place until there's a funding stream available.
So if permission is never granted on Hollands Farm
or other similar scale of development,
then this will never come to fruition.
However, if Hollands Farm does come,
is granted planned permission,
and that will be subject to a Section 106 agreement,
which will fund the provision of a sang,
There is also another application for an alternative SANG, so it depends which one proceeds.
There will be excess capacity in this SANG.
It won't just necessarily be funded by Hollands Farm.
There could be other developments that would get SANG credits from this facility.
and so it's not solely tied to Hollands Farm,
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:37:31
I think was one of the questions you were asking.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get clarification for.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:37:33
Thank you. Yes.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:37:36
Council Townsend.
I think my question actually builds
on the previous question.
You say obviously this application before us
is to determine whether you can go ahead
with the infrastructure that would be needed
if this site was to become a SANG.
Now, my understanding is that that is essentially us giving the go -ahead to say, yes, this can
become a SANG because that question will never return to this committee.
If that is the case, why do we not have things like the habitat management and monitoring
plan in place already?
Because the biodiversity net gain is, it hinges on the success and the quality of that habitat
management and monitoring plan.
Similarly, it hinges on the agreements for funding
and the agreements for monitoring the site
and maintaining it.
I feel like this, you're asking us to go
and give you carte blanche to go and make all these decisions
but actually there's quite a lot of detail there
that's important to the feasibility of this site
as a sign that we're not seeing.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:38:44
We wouldn't know we have a habitat management
monitoring plan in completed at this stage for any large scale developments
that for example housing development that has open space will have a habitat
management monitoring plan that will be required as part of the section 106 but
we wouldn't have it in place by the time it goes to committee it's perfectly
normal that that's dealt with separately afterwards but that it's required as a
as either a condition or as part of a section 106 agreement.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:39:15
Okay, but the fact that we have no visibility of how this site is going to be funded
or how the maintenance is going to occur over the next 80 years,
I find that troubling that we're being asked to make this quite a large decision.
Just on trust.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:39:31
I don't mean to keep cutting in. I beg your pardon.
You're not being asked to approve a SANG per se.
You're being asked for the works that facilitate that use.
And then the SANG will not come into place
unless it's associated with other development.
So primarily Holland's Farm.
And there'll be a section 106 agreement at that time
before that permission is granted
that again can be looked at.
and there would be a habitat management monitoring plan attached to that as well,
but not necessarily relating to this sang.
It is a de facto approval of a sang, though, isn't it?
It facilitates, it works to facilitate that use,
and there is no further planning permission required, that's correct.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:40:24
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:40:25
So effectively, if this is refused, then the sang wouldn't go ahead.
but we're actually officially looking to see if the infrastructure is permissible.
And the infrastructure is a question of, for instance, if you're broadening footpaths and
encouraging more people, then that's one of the questions that should be asked.
Any more questions? I have a few if I may.
A question about the footprint survey, which, based on footprint ecology, I think that's
what they're called, they recommend a visitor level of one person per hectare per hour as
an approximate level to which a site might be considered reasonably busy.
The footprint ecology in the Little Marlow survey suggested approximately 61 .6 visitors
per hour across the 23 .7 hectares of usable land, which would result in 2 .58 people per
hectare per hour, which significantly exceeds the accepted SANG threshold and indicates
the site is already operating at more than double its functional capacity.
Now that was before they then decided that if they tried to take out the land south of the railway line,
that would still not show enough capacity.
So that is the general purpose.
Now I appreciate that's not Natural England's way of doing things,
but Natural England's way is the Bracknell method,
which you'll have seen is eight hectares per thousand.
But that eight hectares per thousand people is not a physical amount.
That hectares per thousand is basically the permissible amount,
knowing that a lot of those people are not gonna actually go there.
Because a lot of them don't have dogs, a lot of them don't wanna drive,
a lot of them might be incapacitated in some way.
So you're not gonna have that full capacity.
So when you look at other things, so for instance,
the visitor survey of the potential sand sites at Wealden district.
Nearly all of them had a people per hectare.
Boothland Wood, Crowbrough Gill, Lakewood, Uckfield Millennium Green,
Views Wood, West Park, all under, well no, not quite,
West Park was 1 .1, but all of the others are 0 .42
people per hour, per hectare per hour.
So, I suppose my question really is why we feel that it's suitable
when we know it's overcrowded.
And I appreciate that the, sorry, just to go on before you,
just looking, if you were to revert back.
So what they've done is they've taken what looks like 964,
65 people and taken that away from the permissible number,
from the Bracknell method to leave that residue,
which means it's 764 dwellings, it would be the capacity.
But in truth, that's not really the case, because when you take away
the number of people from the eight hectares per thousand,
which are not real, because we know that not that many people go,
but you've got 965 who do go regularly,
it gives a false number of housing, really,
in terms of the overcapacity of that area.
We've already heard from various different councils about how busy Colmram Lane is
And that's one of my concerns. I'm just wondering what the thoughts were in terms of capacity
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:44:17
So I wasn't involved in the original discussions with Natural England
that would have been the policy team at the time that they were allocating this for
for Sang prior to the cabinet decision last January.
But from memory, the circular walk did include
the Thames path initially, which skewed the results
as it had a high number of visitors.
That's a very sort of busy stretch of public rights of way,
which I think resulted in the alternative 2 .3 kilometre route
around the northern part of the lake.
Because in order to comply with Sang,
and there needs to be an element of uplift
from what is existing.
So I'm not familiar with the numbers
that you've quoted there,
but that's sort of my broad brush understanding
of what happened.
But I do know that Natural England
have been consulted throughout,
and they don't have any objection,
and they do think it can provide sang.
And I think I share Councillor Munger's concern
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:45:16
that the Natural England's statement is literally,
it's absolutely fine, it won't have any impact
on a designated site.
And we know it's not a designated site.
So part of the question then is,
there is no information which we use, the portal,
there is no information on the portal from Natural England
other than this one statement that says
it's okay basically.
and it's not going to damage the designated site.
The designated site is not a designated site.
It's a notable site in terms of Wickham District Council,
but it's not an official site.
Can I just say?
Yeah, go ahead.
So my interpretation of that,
they're not commenting on the suitability of SANG
because that's what they will do at a later date
in the appropriate assessment.
They're commenting on the infrastructure
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:46:19
that is proposed, which is the car park and the additional pathways, and they have no objection to that.
But they will be assessing its suitability for Seng at a time when a housing development wants to rely on it for Seng.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:46:29
But I think in terms of numbers, we're assessing the broadening of paths, the changing of adding routes into what is an already busy area.
I appreciate that we don't want children crying because they've got their bike stuck,
but at the same instance, I think creating new routes through that are almost double the width
is going to be quite intrusive, especially when they do go up, albeit they go round,
but they're still going and bordering the whole of that side of the Spade Oak and Colmram Lane.
I mean, it seems to follow Colmram Lane round.
I also have another question because on a review of sustainable visited numbers at Birnham Beaches,
which is another report by Footprint Ecology,
they raise damage to paths,
and they're saying that 20 people,
the approximate level of use at which impact occurs,
20 people per day along a path,
I think we're gonna have a huge amount of people
coming along the path.
So again, I'm just wondering what sort of infrastructure
would be there to keep the paths in a reasonable state.
I mean, at the moment,
they're not as well used around there,
therefore there's not as much damage,
there's flooding which tends to sort of wash things level.
Just again, so yeah, do we have any plans for the upkeep?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:47:52
So yes, the pathways will be maintained
and they will be maintained for 80 years
and the detail of that will be set out along with the MOU
and it will be secured in a section 106
when a housing development wants to rely
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:48:12
Next question is one about the shape of the walk.
The circular walk I think was intended at one point to encompass the whole lake.
And because of the odours it was restricted.
It's now a sea -shaped, well banana -shaped lake with pinch points which I think aren't really great, certainly for a sound.
So again, we're putting in place something that I don't think really is overall suitable,
but I see that again, you're going to say that Natural England don't have a problem with it, are they?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:48:47
No, they've, they've, they've okayed it with the policy team.
They haven't commented on this particular application, but that was part of the applicant putting the application together,
was that Natural England had been consulted and were in agreement.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:49:04
Okay, another question about the ODAR, well it's actually about the ODAR report because I think we've touched on it.
In the ODAR report it mentioned that...
Let me just find one here for a minute.
The circular walk, well firstly there were no ODAR tests done near the north part of the walk.
And also, when the odour tests were done, there were no winds in the north northeasterly direction.
So, in terms of odour, it's well documented that it is quite an odourous site.
People who live nearby are probably quite used to it, because if you live in Little Marlowe,
you get whiffs of it fairly frequently.
I know that from other councillors here, Councillor Acres of Little Marlowe Parish Council said,
it's periodically smelly, and those smells vary.
Councillor Crabtree pointed out that actually there's toxic algae,
so a lot of the odours come from elsewhere.
And in the report on the field odour tests,
there are days when, for instance...
So the fields that we were serving on the 21st and the 6th, nearly all the sites were marked as unpleasant.
Site 1, 2, 3 and 4 unpleasant. Site 5 unpleasant. Site 7 unpleasant. Site 8 unpleasant. 10, 11, 12 unpleasant.
Some with the smell is down as faeces, some are lake algae.
So we know even from the odour test that it's not pleasant.
And so I'm just trying to work out how it gets through the tests,
bearing in mind that also within the report,
it states that the interviews with people stated that
30 % of people felt that the odour of the site affected them going there, and in the summary
it was 40%.
So I'm just questioning whether or not the idea of having all these reports that we then
kind of ignore, because we know it's one of the criteria of the sound, but then it's basically,
it seems to be ignored.
I'm just wondering what was the point of the surveys.
And also that doesn't include the top of the site because as I said in the top of the testing was at 0 .7 was by the moor.
There was no testing around the Moshallak Road area going well past until it goes quite a long way past the gravel path
until the smell tests were done going around the east side, which goes right down to the railway line.
So I'm just wondering what the reasons are that we have reports done and then ignore them.
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 2:52:13
Well I understand the reports were carried out as a request from Natural England or concerns raised with Natural England.
and I know that the policy team met with Natural England on site after the report had been finalised
and did a walk around the site and as a result of that the 2 .3km walk around the northern area came about.
Which wasn't tested.
But Natural England were comfortable.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:52:45
The other question of unpleasant intrusions is noise because it has been documented as well as a distant road noise
associated with the A4155 and the A404, which in the little Marlowe, for the film studios,
it was the DBLAQ15, which is the standard for the noise is 57 decibels, which is considerably
above the 20 to 40 rural area. So again, I'm just getting to the point where I think we're
looking at these, sort of the essentials and the desirables, these were all in the essential part.
And I think that we, because we haven't seen any report from Natural England in terms of the details of how it's come to a decision,
other than just saying it's almost like it doesn't matter because it's not a designated site.
So I'm just questioning that.
There's any other? Sorry.
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:53:51
I can clarify the Natural England response a little bit. It's because they're a statutory
consortee, but because this application isn't for the SANG
itself, it's only on the infrastructure, they've essentially been asked, does the
infrastructure impact the statutory site, which is where their duty
of consult he comes into.
So unless it was an internationally designated site,
such as SAC or SSSI,
that is all they're concerned about
within their response for this application.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:54:20
That's just what I'm thinking.
And I think that similarly,
as Councillor Townsend pointed out,
this is our only chance of actually deciding
whether or not this is the correct thing for this area
and for the people who live close by.
Now, I think that for me, it's a red herring, the councillors from Wubben,
I completely get why they're upset because they don't want Holland to be,
I mean, I completely get that, that they don't want development there,
and this is the hinge, but I'm more concerned about the people that live there.
This is not a question I wanted to know, that it's been thoroughly scrutinised
before a decision is made, because once this is done,
and then there is no more going back.
And the question then is whether or not
this overcapacity site that smells
is the right place for a sang
and for the sang infrastructure
to increase the amount of people going there.
That's not the question before you.
The planning application is for the creation
of the car park footpaths and other infrastructure.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 2:55:26
So that's why Natural England are not concerned about it
and why it's not within your remit.
The question of the location of a sang
And the the country park that's a cabinet decision
That's not and planning application because this is not for change of use you are purely here to consider the infrastructure
That's being put forward
That's the only matter before you it's not to interrogate
the principle of the use as a sign,
because that's not the planning application
that you're here to consider today.
What I'm trying to get to is the amount of use
of the footpaths which we're permitting.
And those will...
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:56:11
Which ultimately, I was just gonna say,
I think that the reason we've got all these,
I mean, if we were only considering those,
then on the planning portal,
there is a lot of other stuff on there.
And I'm sure that's there,
if it's there because it's part of a planning application,
then that's something that we really should be looking at as well,
which includes the footprint analysis,
odour tests, all those sort of things, because they're all on there.
The use of the footpaths will be dealt with in the management plan,
which will be appended to the MOU
and will be publicly available at that point.
So could I ask one more question, which is of the Ecology Officer actually, which looking
at the Ecology Spade Oak Lake proposed sang ecology overview, which again was on the portal.
It's a remarkable document in that it lists all the different grasses, amazing stuff,
but it doesn't seem to be mentioned of a bird anywhere.
And that again, is just a concern in terms of ecology.
Just wondering if there's a reason for that.
Bearing in mind the rarity of the birds
and the potential of new footpaths
and dogs or whatever affecting those areas.
You are quite correct.
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:57:38
There is an absence of a bird survey and I suppose I have made a recommendation based
on my own assessment of data records that we have on the site, that the site is possibly
of regional importance to birds and I've considered whether imposing a condition to the application
could mitigate that impact, but you are correct that it has been identified by our ecology
team internally.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:58:20
Thank you, I mean I think that I've got here reasonable likelihood of protected species.
Of particular interest are the wetland birds that have been recorded here including shoveler,
they all have funny names, shoveler, potter, wigeon, gadwall, kingfisher and skylark. I
know for a fact that the common kingfisher is protected species under Schedule 1 of the
Wildlife Countryside Act. Skylarks are on the red list. But also just looking at the
National Policy Framework and the Planning Practise Guidance in Section 99 which states
it is essential that the presence of otherwise or protected species and the extent that they
may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission
is granted. Otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed
in making the decision.
Annie Ottaway - Biodiversity Net Gain Officer - 2:59:03
It is definitely a material consideration for the decision maker as to whether protected
species have been adequately considered.
I suppose as part of our internal ecology advice, we went on the assumption that the
site is of regional importance to both wintering and breeding birds.
But that definitely needs to be a consideration in decision making, whether you've got sufficient
information on the value of the site and also whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:59:41
Section 99 finishes where this is the case the survey should be complete and any necessary
measures to protect the species should be in place through conditions and or panning obligations
before permission is granted. So I guess yeah.
Sorry, does anybody else have any questions?
I'm sorry, I've hung the line up.
Councillor Munger.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:00:09
Far be it from me to challenge our legal advisor, Kasper Stubbs, but you've directed us to the
fact that what is before us today is to quote from here, the creation of a car park, footpaths
and other suitable, you were specific about the creation of car park and footpaths. You
didn't include the last part of that statement to facilitate the use of the land as a sign.
So am I right in thinking that we are here to decide on the suitability, on the creation of the car park and footpaths
in relation, in direct relation to its suitability for use as a sang?
Or are we here just to decide whether in this area it's okay to have a car park and footpaths?
It is in the context of use as a sang but you're not being asked to grant permission for the change of use as a sang.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 3:01:11
But the suitability of its use as a sang is an important element of what we're deciding on.
It's whether the car park and footpaths are suitable in that context.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:01:26
Councillor.
Thank you, chairman.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:01:30
I'm going down the same angle,
but I'm going to try it from a different angle, basically.
So I think I'm going to do this,
not just as a substitute member of this committee,
but as a chair of standards committee.
I just want to be clear,
and then I'm going to put this question to the officers,
because I raised this to the council,
is simultaneously the land owner, the applicant,
and the planning authority determining this application.
There's quite a lot of sentiments locally
and from local ward members in parish
that it's a bit of an unusual position.
But for the benefit of my councillors,
and I think there is some context behind this,
I've done some research.
So I think about a year and a half ago,
2nd of January, 2025,
cabinet passed a formal key decision
approving in principle the creation of a sang at Spay Oak
and directing the offices to proceed.
that decision was then called in by the then growth
and infrastructure housing committee,
select committee supported by 23 elected councillors.
Now, ultimately the cabinet decision stood.
So I just want to ask really the officers,
and I want it on public record,
just so for councillors here,
while we're doing this and for the residents
and everyone involved,
that the recommendation before this committee
has been reached independently
on planning merits alone and consistent
with professional judgement of your department,
not as a consequence of the cabinet decision
that preceded it in principle to approve a saying.
That's all I wanted to hear.
So thank you.
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 3:03:03
Yes, I can confirm that.
The application is a planning application
with these specific elements, not for the use, as I've said.
So that cabinet decision doesn't come into it.
The cabinet decision sets the criteria
that this is intended to be used as a sign.
And we are, the planning officers have judged
on the planning merits, the infrastructure,
which you're being asked to consider today.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:03:34
I just wanted it on record, just for clarity, transparency.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:03:36
Any more questions for the officers?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:03:48
In which case we can open the debate if anybody would like to make a stop.
Councillor Townsend. Thank you. Obviously I've listened carefully to what you're saying
about the scope of what we're deciding today. The way I'm viewing it is we are
being asked to decide upon this infrastructure but the impact of this
infrastructure will be to encourage significant numbers of people to use the
to walk, to park, to use it, to walk around it.
So then that leads me to the question,
is it suitable for that purpose?
Which is akin to considering whether it is suitable
as use as a thang.
The fact that we don't have some of those
important species surveys like the bird surveys,
I think is very damning to this application.
This is a nature reserve, for want of a better word.
It's for nature.
It's not for people and dogs to be tramping around. We don't know
we don't have the evidence of what the ecological damage will be upon birds if
This site is if we encourage more people to come and walk around this site
I haven't heard any evidence supporting that and I think that is that's a crucial missing part from this application
I
Think there's also I am also concerned about the
biodiversity net gain statement that I brought up before.
I think there are certain species surveys missing
that it was not carried out during the growing season.
And I feel like, you know, that it's obviously,
they're trying to fit the evidence to suit the purpose,
which I understand because that's what an applicant will do.
But in this case, I don't think it's appropriate.
And that's the position that I find myself in at the moment.
Councillor Moore.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:05:34
Cllr David Moore - 3:05:35
Thank you, Chairman. I just want to firstly say it's all the members' contributions today have been, it's wonderful to see such scrutiny.
Really good questions asked and Chairman, I really do sympathise a lot of the questions you asked and clarified with the officers.
In my view though, I think the SANG works are modest. I think they are largely policy compliant.
I think they're bringing accessible recreation, 10 % increase in BNG.
I know this decision today doesn't switch on the San
but I think it's important we get the foundations right and
For me it would be good to see
and I know this kind of goes back to the officer clarification, but it's more in terms of
improvements a
Final kind of path screening plan to ensure that the dogs are not going to go and cause issues with sensitive bird areas
and I do very much sympathise with that.
So, dog on lead issues, as Councillor Huxley
also touched on earlier.
Proper permeable drainage for the car park, as in FZ2.
And perhaps a reinforced car park management plan
to ensure there isn't overspill either.
And thank you for your clarification earlier
regarding the habitat management plan,
because I think it's really important
that that aligns with the ATA MOU.
So the habitat gains actually endure.
And thank you for clarifying that, that it will hit that.
And it'd be good to have some solid policy reassurance
on that.
So with those tweaks,
I am content with the officer's recommendation
and I'm happy to put on record that I would like to propose
that we accept the officer's recommendation,
but I look forward to hearing what members also say,
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:07:19
but thank you very much.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:07:21
Councillor Walters and then Councillor Feeley.
I think as we've gone through this, there is, and particularly on the legal advice,
there are some narrow things that we're really taking some decisions on here in terms of
what is actually going on the site and whether they are acceptable.
And the clear role of Natural England is not to actually say
that they would give approval for this or not.
That's not what's going to happen here.
All they're saying is these items, if they were put
on the site, would not prohibit a sang actually happening.
It's not saying actually that's absolutely fine.
We would give a sang.
So actually, they're that, and that is not something
which is in our remit within the committee here.
That part of it, the bit that we do need to make sure of,
and I think that the chairman has brought up,
is the assessments which are based on the footpaths,
if they went in, how have we got the information,
how have we had the assessments done
that would actually say there is not going to be an impact
on birds or anything else within the area, because that actually is something where what
he said and no one has actually said that it's not the case, we should have had that
information before we make the decision because otherwise we're actually saying we can go
ahead with these items, which I... but it would have been really good if we'd have those
reports to say that analysis had been done, this is the outcome of the report,
none of these species are going to be impacted any particular way by the works
which are going to go on. I'd also pick up what Councillor Moore said, I don't think
you're gonna get a permeable car park because it's thick concrete and that's
one of the things they're not going to remove so that's never going to be permeable so
that isn't going to change anything, that's not something we can put in there. So I have some
reservations in terms of I think actually there's some fairly simple
things we're meant to be making decisions on here but that extra report that
should have been there doesn't seem to be there to say we've actually looked at
the species we looked at the flora and fauna but we haven't actually looked at
the species which in this area are really important and had that actually
said we're not impacting it. So that that gives a sort of a bit of a red light for
particularly where it said it should it has to be that we have to be making that
decision with that report in place and that hasn't been challenged so unless
someone's going to challenge that that that causes me some problems to support
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:10:17
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:10:19
Councillor Moore in his proposal. Councillor Peeley. Thank you chairman and I have to
agree I with a lot of what the Councillor has just said I think we need to
this is just stage one of where we are in this process and it says actually
identifying the site the next stages will be developing a number of the
other elements to it before it goes down the route of a sag and for that reason
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:10:43
then I'll support Councillor Moore's recommendation. I think Councillor
Cllr John Chilver - 3:10:49
and Councillor Mclaughlin. Thank you, yes I also support the recommendations and I totally
agree with what Councillor Phelan just said this is just stage one. Whether or not it
eventually does become a sound, all these improvements will make it a more attractive
and enjoyable facility for visitors, local residents. We've heard that the existing car
park is inadequate and there's massive pressure on local parking, particularly in the summer.
So the additional parking spaces will help.
We know the footpaths will get very muddy in the winter, so improving the quality and
state of the footpaths will be of great benefit.
I do hope that the funding can be secured in order to fund this, but as you say, it
is only stage one and I very much support the idea
of it becoming a country park,
coming under our country parks team.
And I'm sure a lot of future improvements can be made,
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:11:55
but I'm happy with what's being proposed.
Councillor.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:12:01
Chairman, I second Councillor Moore's motion
and I support the office's recommendation.
What I would say to colleagues around the table
is I really think we really ought to focus,
what I want to do is concentrate
on the most important issue raised by the,
in opposition by some of the more councillors today
and some of the submissions that we've seen today as well,
which is the ecology argument.
Now we've heard concerns about the impact of wildlife,
you know, water quality at Spate Oak Lake.
Councils know that,
we'll set on planning applications with me,
is that I take those concerns quite seriously.
But I think we need to be clear about what the evidence says
in front of us today.
Natural England, which is a statutory body
established by parliament,
has been consulted on this application,
and they've raised no objection.
They've confirmed that, you know, essentially,
that the proposed development
will have no significant adverse impact
on the proposed site.
The council's only colleges has also been consulted,
rather than objecting, they've come up with recommended helpful conditions, which one
day or, well, it would be legally binding by MOU or Section 106, MOU I think, to protect
this habitat.
So the ecology, from my perspective, is not being ignored.
It's being actively managed and protected through the conditions attached to this very
permission if we were to vote for it today.
And just earlier, I placed on public record, and I know this has sort of been raised by
by some of the speakers today.
In my capacity as chair of the standards committee,
the question of whether this recommendation
has been reached independently
and on planning merits alone.
And the offices have given that on public record.
And therefore, from my perspective,
I think the process has been sound,
the ecology is protected,
and I'll be voting along with the office recommendation.
Thank you.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:14:03
Councillor Langer.
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:14:07
Thank you Chair.
We're being asked to consider
this as a stage one of a process.
A process which so far as I can see leads
us back to the creation of a sang
there has been an inextricable
a link to a significant housing development
at Holland's Farm, a link actually referred to
by a legal officer.
So there is a continuous link between,
right from the creation of a car park
back to the delivery of a significant housing development.
And that seems to have come through clearly.
And I don't think that's the extent
to which we should be considering it. I go back to my earlier question and that is this
is about the creation of a car park for paths to facilitate the use of the land as a sang.
I don't personally believe that it does because I significantly challenge the references to
the requirements of a sang and I don't think they're going to be achieved by what's proposed
in this application.
So for that reason alone,
I won't be supporting the proposal.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:15:37
Perhaps, I know we're in debate point,
but perhaps we can just confirm with officers
what the next stage of deciding
whether the SANG would be suitable,
or if it's just a question of whether or not
the applications in the county
that are within five kilometres
are the thing that creates the SAC.
Yeah, so the site's obviously already in use
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 3:16:05
for public outdoor recreation.
A SAC will only exist if a housing development relies on it
to mitigate their impact on a SAC.
So the term SAC is probably quite complicated
to get your head around, but it's only created
when a housing development wants to utilise that area of open space
to relieve pressure on an area of special conservation?
Does that answer the question?
Well, sort of. I think it's the association of the point where we are not approving a sang,
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:16:44
mainly because sangs don't need approval. That's the case, isn't it?
In this case, yeah.
So, in this case.
So what we're not doing is physically saying a SAC is part of the application
but a SAC would happen if
Holland's farm or another development is proved and
One of the conditions is that they have to pay X amount of money to protect the SAC
Yeah, and managed contribute to the management of the site for 80 years. Yeah
Councillor.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:17:15
Thank you for that clarification.
And I think it comes back to my point that yes,
this is stage one, but in this stage one,
we are being asked to consider whether we should be
encouraging more people to visit this site,
because that is what the provision of a car park
and better footpaths will be.
It will be encouraging people to visit this site,
whether we're calling it a sound or not today,
that is what the impact will be.
And I really don't believe that the ecological
evidence is there to support us making that encouragement. It's like Councillor
Turner mentioned earlier that critical piece of evidence is missing. We should
be having, I mean we're putting up bird hides for birds that we haven't surveyed
or given any thought to how we're protecting and I don't believe that we
should be granting planning permission for something when we don't have that
of evidence in our pack.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:18:14
Just saying, what mild Marlowe objection, which is,
we do not believe that the proposed site is suitable
sang for the B2 developments.
The fundamental aim of the sang is to prevent increased
recreational pressure on the local sack,
and transferring these pressures to another ecologically
valuable site is not deemed appropriate.
But there is no stage two of such effectively. If the building goes ahead in other developments,
not just Holland's Farm but within the five kilometre, then it would become a sound if
conditions meant that they had to put those things in. Is that correct?
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 3:18:55
I just wanted to pick up on the suitability for increased recreational
pressure. The site's allocated as part of the Little Milo Lakes Country Park and
the SPG encourages increased use by visitors so that's what the site is
allocated for so I don't think we can now question whether it's suitable to do
Ms. Katherine Stubbs - 3:19:19
that. But I just wanted to come back on the Chairman's suggestion that it will
sort of naturally become a SANG, there'll be an assessment by Natural England at a
later stage. I just wondered if you could explain. That's right, so in order
Faye Mesgian - Principal Planning Officer - 3:19:34
for a housing development to rely on any SANG, the council are required to write
an appropriate assessment and we have to consult Natural England and if they
object to that use, the use of that site as SANG, then we wouldn't be able to give
permission.
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:19:50
Anybody have any further comments?
Well the proposal is
approval and we've had a proposer and a seconder.
Those in favour?
Six. Those against?
No abstentions.
So therefore the application is approved.
And then we just move to agenda item six.

6 Date of the next meeting

Thank you members, the final item is to note
that the date of the next meeting will be the 30th of March,
2026 at 10 a .m.
And I now declare the meeting closed.
11.
Oh, I beg your pardon.